Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 285. I appeared today on the Disenthrall.me Youtube channel, host Patrick Smith, to discuss libertarian contract theory (Contracts with Stephan Kinsella). We talked about the standard legal view of contracts, the Rothbard-Evers title theory of contract, applications such as bitcoin "smart contracts" and intellectual property, the idea of breach of contract, liquidated damages clauses, and so on. (I was previously a guest -- KOL264 | Disenthrall: Stephan Kinsella on Tim Pool Subverse and Trademark.) From Disenthrall's shownotes: "In response to a viewer request we bring you a deep dive into Libertarian contract theory. What are contracts? Why are contracts? What are NOT contracts?" Patrick is apparently taking over Anarchast, on which I've been a guest in the past, so we may be doing an episode on that channel soon. Related links: Kinsella, A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 Kinsella, Reply to Van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 18, no. 2 (Spring 2004) Kinsella, Justice and Property Rights: Rothbard on Scarcity, Property, Contracts…, Libertarian Standard (Nov. 19, 2010) Rothbard, Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts Evers, Toward a Reformulation of the Law of Contracts KOL225 | Reflections on the Theory of Contract (PFS 2017) KOL146 | Interview of Williamson Evers on the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract KOL020 | “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society: Lecture 3: Applications I: Legal Systems, Contract, Fraud” (Mises Academy, 2011)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 284. This is my discussion about patent and IP policy with a fellow patent attorney, Russ Krajec, who produces the "Patent Myth Podcast". I tried to persuade him patents are evil, or at least, understand why he doesn't agree. He is kinda clueless. See also “Investment Grade Patents are not for Rent Seeking … They are for business negotiations”. Related resources: KOL209 | Trying to Persuade a Patent Lawyer that IP Law is Evil KOL 051 | Discussion with a Fellow Patent Attorney Are anti-IP patent attorneys hypocrites? (April 22, 2011) Is It So Crazy For A Patent Attorney To Think Patents Harm Innovation? (Oct. 1, 2009) Patent Lawyers Who Don’t Toe the Line Should Be Punished! (Sep. 29, 2009) The Most Libertarian Patent Work (July 14, 2009) An Anti-Patent Patent Attorney? Oh my Gawd (July 12, 2009) Patent Lawyers Who Oppose Patent Law Pro-IP “Anarchists” and anti-IP Patent Attorneys

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 283. This was my Webinar presentation at the Freedom Hub Working Group, Has Intellectual Property Become Corporate Welfare? (Wed., Feb. 19, 2020), organized by Jeff Kanter and Charles Frohman. From their shownotes: "Despite two decades of IP law practice for Big Oil and other clients, Stephan Kinsella earlier had been exposed to the great Murry Rothbard (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard) and wasn’t convinced the ancient property rights philosophy had room for intangible ideas - that maybe, he was in the middle of a gross example of corporate welfare that was killing entrepreneurship. Founder and Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, former adjunct professor at South Texas College of Law, and author of “Against Intellectual Property” and “Law in a Libertarian World: Legal Foundations of a Free Society”, Stephan will present “Property Rights versus Intellectual Property”, and apply that lesson to how crony corporations abuse IP to squash competition and suppress innovation - with Big Pharma and the China “IP theft” as examples." The youtube and slides are streamed below. For related material, see my recent episode KOL282 | No, China Is Not “Stealing Our I.P.”

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 282. From Free Man Beyond the Wall, Ep. 379, with host Pete Quinones: Episode 379: No, China Is Not 'Stealing Our I.P.' w/ Stephan Kinsella Feb 19, 2020 66 Minutes Suitable for All Ages Pete invited Stephan Kinsella to return to the show. Stephan is an American intellectual property/patent attorney, author, and anarcho-capitalist. Pete asked Stephan to come on and share his opinion that China is in fact, NOT "stealing our I.P." Stephan gives a primer as to why intellectual property laws are immoral and devious and explains in detail the issue with I.P. and China. Stephan's Anti-IP Books and Articles Stephan's Articles and Speeches The Case Against I.P. 0 A Concise Guide How I.P. Hampers the Free Market The I.P. Commission USTPO and Commerce Dept. Distortions: I.P. Contributes 5 Trillion and 40 Million Jobs to the Economy The Mountain of I.P. Legislation Susan Houseman on Manufacturing - EconTalk Independent Institute on the "Benefits of Intellectual Property Link to Richard Grove's Autonomy Course TakeHumanAction.com Donate at the Libertarian Institute Pete's Link to Sign Up for the LP Lions of Liberty Podcast Pete's Patreon Pete's Books on Amazon Pete's Books Available for Crypto Pete on Facebook Pete on Twitter Below are some comments related to this topic which I sent a friend who had some questions about this issue: *** Here are my thoughts on this matter. I've been thinking about, discussing, and wrestling with these issues for many months now. I have yet to read or speak to anyone who satisfies me that they have "the whole picture" so I have been forced to work without net, mostly. First. Let's understand the basic background of American IP law--mostly, patent and copyright, but sometimes also less impactful variants such as trademark and trade secret (I would count defamation law too, but most legal scholars don't seem to see the connection). Copyright is rooted in censorship, and today is entrenched primarily in industries that think they rely on it--namely, the music and movie industry. Software is now also covered by copyright but oddly many software systems intentionally opt out of copyright through the use of various licenses. In any case, the publishing, music, and movie industry, the latter two largely based in the US, are huge lobbying forces to maintain or expand US copyright law--both domestically (such as with continual lobbying "by Disney" to keep expanding the term of US copyright, to keep Mickey Mouse from becoming public domain, such as with the Sonny Bono copyright term extension at in the 90s --to the point where copyright, originally 14 years [the term of two consecutive apprenticeships] is now life of the author plus 70 years--usually well over a century. And, they also push for the US to use its hegemony to force other companies to ratchet up their IP law to match US terms etc. Case in point: the US told Canada it couldn't participate in the TPP negotiations unless it increased its copyright terms, and Canada did so, by 20 years (in selected cases). Just for the privilege of negotiating in the TPP--which Trump nixed... Similar things have happened with patent, which originated as crown-granted protectionism. Now many industries lobby to keep patent law alive too. Most of this lobbying pressure comes from US industries or western industries, such as hollywood and music and publishing houses in the case of copyright, and pharmaceutical industries in the case of patents. Even some Cato scholars were opposing free trade with Canada a decade or so ago--namely, the "reimportation" of drugs from Canada since they are sold at a lower price there, due to Canadian government price caps, and reimporting them back into the US would undercut Big Pharma's ability to sell at a high monopoly price in the US market. The whole thing is absurd. In any case, the other background to understand, is this. Free trade is one thing; foreign direct investment is another. To have free trade between countries merely requires lowering tariffs. This has happened in fits and starts via managed trade, as you no doubt know, since WWII, including the WTO, NAFTA, and various trade agreements. One can argue whether this is good or bad. I think it's good, since it has resulted in more transnational free trade and lower overall trade barriers, since WWII, even though it's managed trade and not as free as it could be. But the point is, the alleged purpose of such agreements is to mutually lower tariffs. It's *NOT* about internal property rights policies--those are domestic matters that have little to do with international trade per se. And many of these trade agreements are in fact negotiated privately (in secret) and finally the details are released and the agreements are confirmed, as with the recent USMCA. Not in recent decades the US and other western

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 281. This is my appearance on the Death to Tyrants Podcast, Episode 90: Against Intellectual Property, with Stephan Kinsella (Facebook post), released Feb. 3, 2020, with host Buck Johnson. (I was previously a guest back in 2018--see KOL252 | Death to Tyrants Podcast: Human Rights, Property Rights and Copyright.) From the Shownotes: This week, I feature my interview with Stephan Kinsella, the foremost expert on the topic of "intellectual property". Can you own an idea? How about a word? A pattern of words? How about a color? Stephan Kinsella is here to explain why intellectual property is illegitimate. This episode will cause you to think seriously about the topic. Give it a listen. I think you'll enjoy it!

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 280. This is my appearance on the Fallible Animals podcast, Episode 12: Property Rights, Argumentation Ethics, and Praxeology with Stephan Kinsella (Apple podcasts; Spotify version; Youtube version embedded below), with host Logan Chipkin. From Logan's shownotes: "Joining me today is patent attorney and libertarian theorist Stephan Kinsella. Mr. Kinsella is the author of the book, Against Intellectual Property, and is the founder and director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom. He is also the founder and editor of Libertarians Papers, and he’s a member of the Editorial Board of Reason Papers. We cover a wide range of specific topics, from property rights, argumentation ethics, whether or not praxeology is falsifiable, common arguments against the existence or morality of anarcho-capitalism, and potential connections between praxeology, free will, and constructor theory. Stephan Kinsella's website - https://stephankinsella.com Stephan Kinsella's Twitter - https://twitter.com/NSKinsella Mises: Keep It Interesting - https://mises.org/wire/mises-keep-it-interesting A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, Inalienability - https://mises.org/library/libertarian-theory-contract-title-transfer-binding-promises-inalienability-0 How We Come to Own Ourselves - https://mises.org/library/how-we-come-own-ourselves Against Intellectual Property - https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0 Twitter - https://twitter.com/ChipkinLogan Website - www.loganchipkin.com Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/Fallibleanimals " See also Barry Smith, "In Defense of Extreme (Fallibilistic) Apriorism" (1996).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 278. I was a guest on Episode 79 of The Bob Murphy Show, entitled "Stephan Kinsella and Bob Murphy Debate Hans Hoppe’s “Argumentation Ethics”. Back in June we discussed IP and related issues [KOL268 | Bob Murphy Show: Law Without the State, and the Illegitimacy of IP]. We had intended to discuss argumentation ethics but ran out of time. So we did it in this episode. I think it turned out very well. [Update: Ep. 86 Further Thoughts on Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics and Essays on Praxeology ] From Bob's show notes: By popular demand, Bob brings Stephan back on the podcast, this time to debate Hans Hoppe’s famous “argumentation ethics” case for libertarianism. Stephan defends Hoppe’s claim that any attempt to justify a NON-libertarian system would result in a performative contradiction, while Bob clarifies the argument and raises concerns about it. Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest: The YouTube video for this interview. Hans Hoppe’s talk on argumentation ethics at his Property & Freedom Society. The 1988 Liberty symposium on Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. Stephan Kinsella’s concise guide to Hoppe’s argument and its critics. Bob Murphy and Gene Callahan’s critique of argumentation ethics in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, and Stephan Kinsella’s response. Stephan’s earlier appearance on ep. 39 of the Bob Murphy Show, talking about private law and Intellectual Property. Help support the Bob Murphy Show. See also: “Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights,” in The Dialectics of Liberty (Lexington Books, 2019) Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics and Its Critics, StephanKinsella.com (Aug. 11, 2015) Lecture 3 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “The Social Theory of Hoppe” (slides here) Lecture 2 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society” (slides here) The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory, StephanKinsella.com (March 22, 2016) Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan, Anti-state.com (Sept. 19, 2002) “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide,” Mises Daily (May 27, 2011)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 277. I participated in a debate sponsored by America's Future Foundation-Phoenix this past Thursday, Nov. 14, against local patent attorney Maria Crimi Speth. This is the audio from my iPhone. Probably inferior. I'll release better quality media if it becomes available later.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 276. This is my speech delivered for the Troesh Talk, part of the Business Colloquium course, at the Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business at La Sierra University Nov. 12, 2019. I was invited by Associate Dean Gary Chartier, who runs the Colloquium. The audience consisted mainly of business and grad students.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 275. This is my appearance in Episode 54 of the Did You Know Crypto Podcast, with host Dustin Dreifuerst. We talked about ownership of bitcoin and related issues. As Dustin summarized in his show notes: Stephan and I talk about… Ownership, Control & Property as Legal concepts Why you cant actually “own” Bitcoin How Bitcoin is about secrets not property Ownership is a state augmentation Why this isn’t an attack on Bitcoin https://youtu.be/NQ2GOpMjzTo (I previously appeared on this podcast: KOL266 | Did You Know Crypto Podcast, Ep. 36: Bitcoin Patent Trolling.) For more information see this episode and related show notes: KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019).

[From my Webnote series] Related On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse Am I a Bitcoin Maximalist? Craig Wright: You Don’t Own Your Digital Stuff. NFTs Could Actually Fix That — Without Intellectual Property Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 274; also as PFP215 | Stephan Kinsella, Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019). For the Q&A session, see KOL272-2 | Q&A with Hülsmann, Dürr, Kinsella, Hoppe (PFS 2019). [Update: For an article based on the transcript, see "Nobody Owns Bitcoin," StephanKinsella.com (Sept. 20, 2019). See also Pavel Slutskiy, "Yes, You Should Own Bitcoin,” J. Libertarian Stud. 28, no. 1 (2024): 1–19. Update: See KOL395 | Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection (PFS 2022). See Leon Wankum, Bitcoin Is A Possession, Not Property, Bitcoin Magazine (Oct. 2, 2023)] This is my presentation to the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society on Sunday, Sept. 15, 2019. Powerpoint slides embedded below. Youtube embedded below. Also podcast at PFP215. Some related Q&A is in this session which was held later on the same day: Hülsmann, Kinsella, Dürr, Hoppe, Q&A (PFS 2019) [PFP218]. Related links/relevant material: KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) OTHERS: Leon Wankum, "Bitcoin is a Possession, Not Property," Bitcoin Magazine (Oct. 2, 2023) Konrad Graf, Are Bitcoins Ownable?: Property Rights, IP Wrongs, and Legal-Theory Implications [PDF] Preston Byrne, What do you legally “own” with Bitcoin? A short introduction to krypto-property Marty Bent, "Is Bitcoin a New Type of Property?", Bitcoin Magazine (Jul. 29, 2022) On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse LeFevre on Intellectual Property and the “Ownership of Intangibles” The “If you own something, that implies that you can sell it; if you sell something, that implies you must own it first” Fallacies, “The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) “IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender The Limits of Libertarianism?: A Dissenting View KOL249 | WCN’s Max Hillebrand: Intellectual Property and Who Owns Bitcoin Cordato and Kirzner on Intellectual Property Mises on property KOL246 | CryptoVoices: Bitcoin as Property, Digital Goods, Personal Liberty, and Intellectual Property My facebook post discussing ownership of Bitcoin Tom Bell: Copyright Erodes Property? Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, WSJ Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; Miami Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Not Money; Dismisses Money Laundering, Transmitting Charges How to handle bitcoin gains on your taxes SEC: US Securities Laws ‘May Apply’ to Token Sales Federal Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Real Money KOL233 | Mises UK Podcast: Bitcoin Ownership and the Global Withering of the State for more on whether bitcoin is ownable property, see this Facebook thread KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender KOL086 | RARE Radio interview with Kurt Wallace: The War on Bitcoin KOL 043 | Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast, with Michael Shanklin: Bitcoin, Legal Reform, Morality of Voting, Rothbard on Copyright Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, WSJ Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; Miami Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Not Money; Dismisses Money Laundering, Transmitting Charges How to handle bitcoin gains on your taxes SEC: US Securities Laws ‘May Apply’ to Token Sales Federal Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Real Money KOL249 | WCN's Max Hillebrand: Intellectual Property and Who Owns Bitcoin What do you legally “own” with Bitcoin? Posted on November 23, 2018 by prestonbyrne Portugal Tax Authorities Clarify That Buying Or Selling Cryptocurrency Is Tax-Free In the be-careful-what-you-wish-for dept., see NOW THAT BITCOIN IS CONSIDERED PROPERTY IN THE UK, RECLAIMING RANSOMED ASSETS SENT TO EXCHANGES IS MUCH EASIER OTHERS: WSJ article Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, the article notes that legal tender laws are, in fact, jeopardizing BTC. Bitcoins are now classified by the IRS as "property" "instead of" as legal tender money, meaning capital gains taxes are owed on transactions.... This is one danger of BTC advocates using the language of property rights to describe bitcoins. I would argue that bitcoins are not legally owned and thus capital gains taxes are not applicable—or at least, this is one argument the target of a government

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 273. This is my appearance as a guest on Episode 302: "Stephan Kinsella Explains Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics", of the Free Man Beyond the Wall podcast, by host Pete Quinones (formerly known as "Mance Rayder"), hosted by The Libertarian Institute. From his shownotes: Many libertarian/anarchists have heard of the concept of Argumentation Ethics as developed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe but have never looked to see what it’s all about. Stephan Kinsella has studied AEs, applied it to his own work and even developed the thought process further. Here, he gives a lengthy explanation that can serve as your doorway into the subject. Stephan is an attorney in Houston, director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, and editor of Libertarian Papers. The A Priori of Argumentation Longer Hoppe Video Stephan’s Website A Concise Guide to Argumentation Ethics Indiegogo for The Monopoly on Violence Pete’s Patreon Pete’s Bitbacker Pete’s Books on Amazon Pete’s Books Available for Crypto Pete on Facebook Pete on Twitter See also: “Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights,” in The Dialectics of Liberty (Lexington Books, 2019) Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics and Its Critics, StephanKinsella.com (Aug. 11, 2015) Lecture 3 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “The Social Theory of Hoppe” (slides here) Lecture 2 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society” (slides here) The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory, StephanKinsella.com (March 22, 2016) Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan, Anti-state.com (Sept. 19, 2002) “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide,” Mises Daily (May 27, 2011)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 272. This is my appearance on the Ernie Hancock “Declare your Independence” show for Aug. 21 (Hour 2). We discussed defamation law and reputation rights, and some related matters. Grok shownotes: Introduction and Anti-IP Stance The interview begins with host Ernie Hancock introducing Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney and author of "Against Intellectual Property," discussing how his practice led him to oppose IP laws (2:00). Kinsella explains IP justifications as utilitarian market failure arguments, noting patents' temporary nature contradicts true property rights, lasting 17 years versus copyrights' 100+ years (3:00). He critiques government-granted monopolies that stifle innovation, sharing how libertarian views shifted over a decade to recognize IP's disadvantages (4:00). The conversation ties into "Letters of Captain Mark," focusing on "pattern monopolies" as intellectual colonization by the state and privateers (4:52). Reputation and Its Relation to IP Transitioning to reputation, Kinsella links it to IP categories like trademarks, which protect brand value built on reputation, and defamation laws, akin to libel (written) and slander (spoken), allowing suits for false harmful statements (7:00-9:00). He argues reputation isn't owned like physical property but exists in others' minds, per Rothbard, rejecting value-based rights (9:00). After a break featuring a Captain Mark letter on IP (10:00), discussion resumes on reputation residing in evaluators' minds, not enforceable via law, as negative campaigning or lies aren't crimes unless violating physical integrity (11:00-12:00). Kinsella notes his anti-IP writings from 1995, still practicing defensively (12:00-13:00). Practical Reputation Systems and Identification Post-break, topics shift to IP lobbying by Hollywood, music, and pharma industries, with treaties like TPP exporting U.S. standards (14:00-16:00). Reputation examples include eBay, Uber ratings as crowdsourced, privately handled without government (18:00-20:00). Hancock explores pirate ship reputation via crew votes on rehiring, emphasizing blockchain, biometrics for unique ID despite aliases (21:00-23:00). Davi shares a name confusion anecdote, stressing verification for bona fides (23:00). Kinsella agrees on private mechanisms, noting guilds or social media for reputation without state intervention (24:00-25:00). Private ID, Privacy, and Libertarian Principles Fundamentals of private ID are debated, akin to historical letters of reference, ruined by defamation threats chilling employer feedback (26:00-28:00). Kinsella views identity as knowledge problem, solvable via insurance requiring DNA or biometrics (28:00-29:00). Facial recognition isn't libertarian violation if private, as no trespass occurs; anonymity costs credibility, like pseudonyms reducing trust (30:00-32:00). Discussion covers nuisance laws not applying to "photons" from unsightly properties, blurring faces as IP distortion (36:00-38:00). Evading IP via torrenting, 3D printing foreseen; blue check marks as private verification (39:00-41:00). Ends with guild models co-opted by state, market for private credentials (41:00-43:00), wrapping at farewell (52:00). https://youtu.be/eIpV7mBfHWc Related links: Rothbard, Knowledge, True and False Block, Defending the Undefendable, ch. 7 "The Slanderer and Libeler" David Kelley vs. Nat Hentoff on Libel, Youtube Kinsella, Reply to Van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 18, no. 2 (Spring 2004) Initial Youtube transcript as cleaned up by Grok (Grok may have used the wrong names in places, I have not checked yet): [0:00] [Ernie Hancock]: And now live from the studios of Freedom's Phoenix, Ernest Hancock. Believe me when I say we have a difficult time ahead of us. But if we are to be prepared for it, we must first shed our fear of it. I stand here without fear because I remember. I remember that I am here not because of the path that lies before me, but because of the path that lies behind me. I remember that for 100 years we have fought these machines. And after a century of war, I remember that which matters most. We are still here. Let us make them remember we are not afraid. [1:00] [Ernie Hancock]: I'm here and declare your independence with me, Ernie Hancock. Davi Barker sitting in, last day before he has to head off tomorrow. We might do a little bit of show tomorrow. Stephan Kinsella, Donna's getting him on the line now. He had the time wrong, so we'll get him on in just a second here. She's calling him now. Now, Davi and I are going to be talking about reputation with Stephan Kinsella. Now, the one thing, we're done with Captain Kid. I was thinking, the Emancipation, could we make him an airship? Can we make the Emancipation an airship? [Davi Barker]: Oh, yeah. He needs a ship.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 271. This is my appearance on Let's Talk ETC! #87 (June 24, 2019), with host Dr. Christian Seberino. From his shownotes: Stephan Kinsella is a Houston patent lawyer and libertarian advocate. He joins me for an informative discussion about libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism and related blockchain legal issues. Topics addressed include how blockchain technologies impact privacy, tax collection, copyrights, patents, obscenity laws and more.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 270. This is my second appearance on The Corbett Report (Ep. 1453, 25 June 2019), with host James Corbett (from Japan): Interview 1453 – Stephan Kinsella on Law Without the State Stephan Kinsella joins us today to discuss the concept of law without the state. Is law and order possible without a state? What would that look like? And just what is “the law,” anyway? Find out more in this fascinating conversation on law, history, philosophy and anarchy. Related: What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist, LewRockwell.com (Jan. 20, 2004) Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach (Feb. 3, 2009) Hoppe, Anarcho-Capitalism: An annotated bibliography, LewRockwell.com, December 31, 2001 KOL144 | Corbett Report Radio (2012)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 269. My old friend Jack Criss, former libertarian AM radio talk show host from the 1980s and now a business journalist and publisher, throws his hat into the podcast ring. He interviewed me today. His episode page is here.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 268. I was a guest on Episode 39 of the excellent podcast The Bob Murphy Show, discussing "Law Without the State, and the Illegitimacy of IP (Intellectual Property)". A few people have told me this particular discussion of IP was one of my best--thorough and systematic. No doubt aided by Bob's excellent prompting, questions, and guidance. Update: Someone on the Youtube comments asked me what essay we were discussing in this talk. I don't think we were talking about any particular article, but I would say my best, most recent and comprehensive piece is my most recent: The Problem with Intellectual Property (2025). Other relevant pieces: A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP Against Intellectual Property (2001/2008) Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society (2013/2023) Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward (2023) You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (2023) Stephan Kinsella, ed., The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (2023) Bob and I had planned to also discuss argumentation ethics, but the discussion of IP ran longer than we expected so we'll save AE for next time. [Update: KOL278 | Bob Murphy Show: Debating Hans Hoppe’s “Argumentation Ethics”.] From Bob's show notes: Bob talks with Stephan Kinsella about the basis of libertarian law, and how we could have justice without a coercive State. They then discuss Stephan’s pathbreaking work making the case that property must be in tangible things, rendering “intellectual property” an incoherent and dangerous concept. GROK shownote summary: In this episode of the Bob Murphy Show (Episode 39), recorded in June 2019, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella discusses "Law Without the State, and the Illegitimacy of IP (Intellectual Property)" with host Bob Murphy, delivering a thorough critique of intellectual property laws rooted in Austrian economics and libertarian principles (0:00-10:00). Kinsella begins by outlining the basis of libertarian law, emphasizing that property rights apply only to scarce, rivalrous resources like physical objects, not non-scarce ideas, and argues that a stateless society could achieve justice through private law mechanisms like contracts and arbitration (10:01-25:00). He then transitions to IP, asserting that patents and copyrights are state-granted monopolies that violate property rights by restricting how individuals use their own resources, using examples like a patented mousetrap to illustrate this infringement (25:01-40:00). Kinsella’s discussion, praised for its clarity and systematic approach, leverages Murphy’s probing questions to highlight IP’s philosophical and practical flaws. Kinsella further explores IP’s economic harms, such as distorted research and high litigation costs, citing studies that show no net innovation benefits, and contrasts these with IP-free industries like open-source software that thrive on competition (40:01-55:00). He addresses common pro-IP arguments, including utilitarian claims and creation-based ownership, arguing that creation transforms owned resources, not ideas, and dismisses contractual IP schemes as ineffective against third parties (55:01-1:10:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella responds to Murphy’s questions on transitioning to a stateless legal system, the role of reputation in private law, and IP’s impact on pharmaceuticals, reinforcing his call for IP’s abolition to foster a free market of ideas (1:10:01-1:33:05). The conversation, intended to include argumentation ethics but focused solely on IP due to time, concludes with Kinsella urging libertarians to reject IP as a statist distortion, aligning with his broader vision of decentralized justice (1:33:06-1:33:05). This episode is a compelling exploration of libertarian law and IP’s illegitimacy, ideal for those seeking a principled critique. Youtube Transcript and Detailed Grok summary below. https://youtu.be/G5MIdkXeufY Grok summary: Summary of The Bob Murphy Show Episode 39 Introduction and Background 0:00 Bob Murphy introduces episode 39 of The Bob Murphy Show, featuring an interview with Stephan Kinsella, a practicing patent attorney, libertarian writer, speaker, director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, and editor of Libertarian Papers. Murphy highlights their long acquaintance through Mises Institute events and online debates, particularly their disagreement on Hans Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, which they did not discuss due to time constraints. Instead, the conversation focused on private law and Kinsella’s influential work on intellectual property (IP), with plans to revisit their argumentation ethics dispute in a future episode. Personal Journey to Libertarianism 5:34 Stephan Kinsella shares his journey to becoming a prominent libertarian legal theorist. Originally from Louisiana, he became interested in libertarianism in h

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 267. I was a guest today on Sal Mayweather's "The Agora" podcast, ep. 48 (Soundcloud version below). From his shownotes: We discussed Craig's copyright application of the Bitcoin White Paper and whether they lend any credence to his claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto. Does a copyright application imply that CSW is actually Satoshi? Stephan also breaks down some of the torts Craig has filed against against various individuals who have said he isn't Satoshi and/or referred to him as a fraud. Can he use the courts to force individuals to recognize him as Satoshi? This is a great opportunity to learn the standard libertarian position on IP, the difference between a copyright and a patent & how it all applies to current crypto-community from the world's leading expert!

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 266. This is my appearance in Episode 36 of the Did You Know Crypto Podcast, with host Dustin. We talked "about the possibility of using patents as an attack vector on Bitcoin." As Dustin summarized in his show notes: Stephan and I talk about… What is a Patent? Differences in EU/US & China Why is it so “hallowed” Open Source Software and patents What is a “Patent Troll” Craig Wright’s patents Can Bitcoin developers be sued? https://youtu.be/_c2NxObY-O0 NOTES: Stephan on Twitter Stephan’s website History of Patents Paris Convention Patent cooperation treaty Current (2019) US /China Tarriff dispute KOL234 | Vin Armani Show: Live from London: Kinsella vs. Craig Wright on Intellectual Property KOL267 | Sal the Agorist Interview: Bitcoin, Copyright, Craig Wright Tom Woods w/Stephan Kinsella – Ep 225 “Patents & Liberty” Tom Woods w/Stephan Kinsella – “Libertarianism & Intellectual Property” Article on Nchain Hiring Patent Lawyer

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 265. This is my conversation with Jordan Head, who expressed some disagreement or confusion about my Against IP book on a Twitter thread; I offered to discuss with him, as I often do, and he took me up on it and consented to my recording it and posting it. His main hangup was my emphasis on "scarcity" and so he was thinking time was a scarce resource, so it's being "stolen" if others copy your products, etc. I think we made good progress. We briefly discussed a few unrelated issues, like Bitcoin maximalism. Related: KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender, Jul. 25, 2017 And:

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 264. I appeared today on the Disenthrall.me Youtube channel, host Patrick Smith, to discuss the trademark issues between Tim Pool and his company media Subverse, and StudioFOW which has a popular crowdsourced porn video game coming out also called Subverse. We touched a bit on bitcoin ownership, patent and copyright, defamation law, and trademark law, and related matters. Related links: Tim Pool talks Subverse, Studio FOW, and Trademarks StudioFOW "Subverse" Has Forced Me To Retain A Lawyer Over My Trademark Of The Same Name Subverse porn game kickstarter How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law Trademark versus Copyright and Patent, or: Is All IP Evil? The Patent, Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Horror Files

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 263. This is my short portion of the panel presentation "The Significance of Hans-Hermann Hoppe," from the 2019 Austrian Economics Research Conference (AERC), at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on the occasion of Professor Hoppe's 70th birth year. The entire panel presentation, plus my notes, and a link to a longer talk on similar themes, are below. Related: KOL259 | “How To Think About Property”, New Hampshire Liberty Forum 2019 “Hoppe on Property Rights” Panel: The Significance of Hans-Hermann Hoppe Auburn, Alabama • Mises Institute March 23 2019 Stephan Kinsella Kinsella Law Practice, Libertarian Papers, C4SIF.org NOTES Came across Hoppe’s writing in law school, his 1988 Liberty article “The Ultimate Justification of the Private Property Ethic.” Eventually met Hans at a conference in 1994, where I also met David Gordon, Rothbard, Walter Block, Lew, and others Hans’s contributions in a large number of fields have influenced me and many others: argumentation ethics; various aspects of praxeological economics; method and epistemology; a critique of logical positivism; democracy; immigration; and various cultural analyses. Helped change my mind about a large number of particular matters, such as the US Constitution, natural rights, and so on Eventually led to Guido and I editing a Festschrift in 2009 Presented here 10 years ago Including a large number of contributors including all of the panelists here today I delivered a 6 week Mises Academy course in 2011 on “The Social Theory of Hoppe” I’m going to focus on his views on property rights, which has greatly influenced my own ideas A more in depth talk on this last month at New Hampshire Liberty Forum, “How to Think About Property Rights”, on my podcast feed Laid out very plainly and concisely in Chapters 1 and 2 of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (1989) Only 18 pages—bears re-reading and careful study “Next to the concept of action, property is the most basic category in the social sciences. As a matter of fact, all other concepts to be introduced in this chapter—aggression, contract, capitalism and socialism—are definable in terms of property: aggression being aggression against property, contract being a nonaggressive relationship between property owners, socialism being an institutionalized policy of aggression against property, and capitalism being an institutionalized policy of the recognition of property and contractualism.” He lays out the “natural” position on property rights, and distinguishes it from property rights, the normative position. Natural position is that each actor owns his body Any scarce resource is owned by the person who first appropriated it, or who acquired it from a previous owner by contract Property “rights” mirroring this natural position are then justified with his argumentation ethics, which has been very influential and also controversial in the libertarian world Echoed in Mises, Socialism: “the sociological and juristic concepts of ownership are different.” Key to this analysis is recognizing the role of scarcity, which is inherent in human action, and which socially gives rise to the possibility of interpersonal conflict and thus the necessity for property norms to make conflict free interaction (cooperation) possible. Hans anchors his analysis in a Misesian praxeological framework, in which actors must employ scarce means or resources to achieve ends. In Mises’s praxeological view of human action, there are two distinct but essential components of human action: scarce resources, and knowledge. Actors employ scarce resources, guided by their knowledge The use of resources is essential for all actors, even Crusoe Gives rise to the “natural” position on property (what Mises would call “sociological” ownership) In society, there is the possibility of conflict over scarce resources Gives rise to the necessity of property rights But notice the concepts of property and property rights apply only the the first component of action: scarce resources. Precisely because they are scarce: that is, interpersonal conflict over their use is possible Not to knowledge Knowledge is the recipes and other information about the world that guides our choices and actions The concept of conflict has no application to knowledge Any number of actors can act on the same or similar knowledge at the same time without any conflict whatsoever This is precisely why I ultimately was led to my conclusion that all concepts of so-called “intellectual property rights”—primarily patent and copyright—are completely unjust and unlibertarian. Took me several years of study, research, and thinking to clarify my thinking on this issue, and most of it centered around understanding the crucial role of scarcity in the nature of property rights This is why, amazingly, Hans was instantly able to recognize this early on: 1988 panel discussionon ethics with Rothbard, Hoppe, David Gordon, and Leland Yeager, w

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 262. This is a followup to my episode KOL261 | Venture Stories Podcast Debating Austrian Economics, Libertarianism, and Bitcoin with Noah Smith. I recorded some of my impressions after the show was concluded, making observations about how it went, and so on. Listen at your own peril!

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 261. This is my appearance on the Venture Stories Podcast by Village Global, April 6 episode, hosted by Erik Torenberg: A Comparison of Austrian and Keynesian Economics with Noah Smith, Parker Thompson and Stephan Kinsella. It ended up being a bit of a debate with the other guest, Noah Smith of Bloomberg. This was a bit of an interesting episode, as I explain in the informal "bonus" episode KOL262. We ended up discussing/debating a variety of issues, such as: Austrian economics and praxeology, the business cycle, bitcoin, libertarianism, the federal reserve, anarcho-capitalism and related. By the time we started the podcast I had forgotten it was not exactly for an already-libertarian or Austrian audience, and in fact the host seemed at first (off-air) to think I was the Irish economic journalist Stephen Kinsella (see Stephen Kinsella’s I am Not), and I had forgotten it was a debate and that Smith would be taking positions opposed to Austrianism and libertarianism. My performance was a bit subpar, but I did the best I could to present Austrian views even though I'm not a professional economist. [I believe this was the show where I derisively referred to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as "Occasional Cortex," as I did also here, to the uncomfortable chuckles of the others, and they excised this from the published episode.] From the show notes: On this episode Erik is joined by Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella), libertarian writer and patent attorney, Noah Smith (@Noahpinion), Bloomberg opinion writer, and Parker Thompson (@pt), partner at AngelList. In a spirited debate, the three of them discuss the relative merits of Austrian economics vs. Keynesian economics. They start out by defining the primary schools of economic thought and explaining where each of the guests sits on the spectrum of economic thinking. They talk about the value of empiricism when it comes to economics and whether economic theories can be derived from first principles. They discuss inflation and whether centralized control of the money supply leads to better economic outcomes, as well as how one can determine these things in the messy real world. They also touch on a number of other topics, including whether it would be a good thing to get rid of the FDA and pharmaceutical patents, whether antitrust law is “unethical,” and whether the patent system is a net positive for society. Embedded: Listen to "A Comparison of Austrian and Keynesian Economics with Noah Smith, Parker Thompson and Stephan Kinsella" on Spreaker. Local copy. Related: Milton Friedman, Essays in Positive Economics Karl Fogel, The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World (see Youtube) KOL 038 | Debate with Robert Wenzel on Intellectual Property In response to one of Smith's comments about the origin of copyright, see Karl Fogel: "The first copyright law was a 1556 censorship statute in England. It granted the Company of Stationers, a London guild, exclusive rights to own and run printing presses. Company members registered books under their own name, not the author's name, and these registrations could be transferred or sold only to other Company members. In exchange for their government-granted monopoly on the book trade, the Stationers aided the government's censors, by controlling what was printed, and by searching out illegal presses and books — they even had the right to burn unauthorized books and destroy presses. They were, in effect, a private, for-profit information police force." Smith also claimed Robert Lucas and indeed many (most?) economists were for abolition of patents. I would love to see proof of this. Smith also seemed to deny that it's accepted in economics that minimum wage laws cause unemployment or that free trade is generally beneficial. Hunh? Smith seems to think that minimum wage might be justified if it only harms a few people but benefits most, without seeming to realize that the people that minimum wage laws harm are generally the very people the law purports to help: the least skilled and poor. Robert P. Murphy, The Depression You've Never Heard Of: 1920-1921 Thomas E. Woods, The Forgotten Depression of 1920 “Essentially, economic analysis consists of: (1) an understanding of the categories of action and an understanding of the meaning of a change in values, costs, technological knowledge, etc.; (2) a description of a situation in which these categories assume concrete meaning, where definite people are identified as actors with definite objects specified as their means of action, with definite goals identified as values and definite things specified as costs; and (3) a deduction of the consequences that result from the performance of some specified action in this situation, or of the consequences that result for an actor if this situation is changed in a specified way. And this deduction must yield a priori-valid

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 260. Libertarian Party Chair Nick Sarwark and I discuss a potpourri of libertarian issues, such as minarchy vs. anarchy, libertarian "centralism" and the Fourteenth Amendment, and applications to abortion, gay (same sex) marriage, civil asset forfeiture and the like. https://youtu.be/RZi2xDWcSGo Related links: Timbs vs. Indiana (2019)--recent Supreme Court civil asset forfeiture case Supreme Court rules against highway robbery through asset forfeiture Another neo-confederate, xenophobic racist… Healy on States’ Rights and Libertarian Centralists; Healy versus Bolick and the Institute for Justice The Libertarian Case Against the Fourteenth Amendment The Embarrassing Fawning over the Criminal State by Regime Libertarians The Unique American Federal Government Various Kinsella posts criticizing "libertarian centralism"

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 259. New Hampshire Liberty Forum, Manchester NH, Feb. 8, 2019. [Update: transcript here.] This is my main presentation at New Hampshire Liberty Forum, Feb. 8, 2019. Recorded on my iPhone. I'll upload a higher quality version later, if it becomes available. Youtube: https://youtu.be/asozCLV4FJ4 My Powerpoint that I used is embedded below: Background: KOL 037 | Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability Rothbard on the “Original Sin” in Land Titles: 1969 vs. 1974 (Nov. 5, 2014) “What Libertarianism Is”, see esp. n. 25 and accompanying text, regarding tracing title, in a property dispute, back to a common author (ancestor in title). Bonus: I also appeared on the Vin Armani and Dave Butler (of Vin and Dave's Destination Unknown podcast) livestream of the Free State Project's New Hampshire Liberty Forum, Day 1 -- we discussed government versus the state, intellectual property, and related issues. It is here: KOL259-2 | Destination Unknown with Vin Armani and Dave Butler: Government vs. the State, Intellectual Property (New Hampshire Liberty Forum 2019).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 258. This is my debate at New Hampshire Liberty Forum, Feb. 7, 2019—really more of a roundtable discussion of immigration policy from a libertarian perspective. The other panelist was Daniel Garza, President of the LIBRE Initiative, and the moderator was Jeremy Kaufman. Some listeners may be surprised at my pro-immigration comments. Transcript below. https://youtu.be/9OWKh3yTyJ8 Recorded on my iPhone. I'll upload a higher quality version later, if it becomes available. Related links: I’m Pro-Immigration and Pro-Open Borders Switzerland, Immigration, Hoppe, Raico, Callahan KOL160 | Bad Quaker on IP, Hoppe, and Immigration Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “Immigration And Libertarianism” at Lew Rockwell My article Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders TRANSCRIPT Liberty Forum Debate vs. Daniel Garza: Immigration Reform: Open Borders or Build the Wall? by Stephan Kinsella, Daniel Garza, and Jeremy Kaufman New Hampshire Liberty Forum, Manchester, NH (Feb. 7, 2019) 00:00:01 M: … something that we’ll find out through the course of this. Speaking tonight are, on my left-hand side, depicted by the convenient net placard I have in front of me, is Stephan Kinsella. You’re not talking to me, all right. Stephan Kinsella who is a patent attorney and leading libertarian legal theorist, the founder and director of the Center of the Study of Innovative Freedom and the Libertarian Papers. He’s a former adjunct professor at the South Texas College of Law. He’s published numerous articles and books in IP law, international law, and the application of libertarian principles to legal topics. You can give a hand for him if you want. 00:00:46 [clapping] 00:00:52 On my right, your left, Daniel Garza, president of the LIBRE Initiative. I have a very lot to say about him, but he’s asked me not to say all of it. So I will say that he held a couple of important positions for the Bush administration in the early 2000s, has also done important things for the Hispanic community for Televisa and Univision and is currently, as I already said, president of the LIBRE Initiative, lives in Mission, Texas with his wife and three children. Daniel Garza. 00:01:22 [clapping] 00:01:27 Moderating this will be Jeffrey Kaufman. I don’t have a bio written for him. I’m going to let you listen to him talk about himself and then field your questions. There is – for anyone who wants to participate in this, Jeffrey will give you the opportunity to do so. There’s a microphone at the back there, so that the panelists can hear you. Just find me back there, and I will let you speak, and thank you for coming. Thank you everybody. Off to you, Jeff. 00:01:52 [clapping] 00:01:57 JEFFREY KAUFMAN: Thank you. And I actually, since I see my purpose as moderator to be facilitating discussion and this has very little to do with me, I’m going to tell you nothing about myself, so we’ll just let that mystery remain. So my purpose is to facilitate these guys talking. This will – if I’m doing my job right, this will be the longest I talk in sequence for the entire night. I do my job to be making sure that they’re answering the questions that are asked. I am going to be trying to find areas of disagreement, so if there’s too much consensus, I’ll hopefully try to rile them up a little bit, and my job is to ask hard questions. There will also be, depending on how good my questions go, either some or a substantial amount of Q&A time from the audience. 00:02:37 So if you – as you’re listening to this, if you have questions, make a mental note of them, and there will be time to ask them at the end. That said, this – while this is a debate, it is not going to be a debate with a fixed resolution, so it’s going to be somewhat of a discussion aspect, although we will be seeking to find the areas of disagreement between our two speakers. 00:03:02 So what I want to start with actually – oh, sorry. One more premise. It’s – when we have these debates, a common tension in libertarian communities is the debate between the pragmatics of what we’re doing today, what we ought to do today in the world we live in today, and sort of what’s compatible with libertarian theory and anarcho-capitalist utopia or whatever you think the world ought to be. And so it’s important both with our speakers when we’re asking questions if you could differentiate between what we think about what should be done today, or are we talking about what should be – how things should be in our ideal world. So I’m going to start just by asking our speakers to just lay out your position on open borders, and we’re going to start with open borders in the world today. So please lay out your position for open borders in the world today, for or against. And we’ll start with Daniel. 00:04:01 DANIEL GARZA: So at the LIBRE Initiative, we take a very pragmatic actually approach to immigration given the realities of the world, given the realities of sometimes the

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 257. I appeared recently on Peter Mac's show for the first time in several years. We talked about a variety of topics: education, law school, anarchy, careers, libertarian activism, and so on. This is Part 3 of 3. Related: Past, Present and Future: Survival Stories of Lawyers New Publisher, Co-Editor for my Legal Treatise, and how I got started with legal publishing Previous appearances on Peter's show: KOL 027 | The Peter Mac Show (2009, discussing IP) KOL057 | Guest on The Peter Mac Show: “Capitalism,” Anarchy, IP and other topics (2010) KOL128 | “The Peter Mac Show,” discussing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) (2012)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 256. I appeared recently on Peter Mac's show for the first time in several years. We talked about a variety of topics: education, law school, anarchy, careers, libertarian activism, and so on. This is Part 2 of 3. Related: Past, Present and Future: Survival Stories of Lawyers New Publisher, Co-Editor for my Legal Treatise, and how I got started with legal publishing Previous appearances on Peter's show: KOL 027 | The Peter Mac Show (2009, discussing IP) KOL057 | Guest on The Peter Mac Show: “Capitalism,” Anarchy, IP and other topics (2010) KOL128 | “The Peter Mac Show,” discussing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) (2012)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 255. I appeared recently on Peter Mac's show for the first time in several years. We talked about a variety of topics: education, law school, anarchy, careers, libertarian activism, and so on. This is Part 1 of 3. Related: Past, Present and Future: Survival Stories of Lawyers New Publisher, Co-Editor for my Legal Treatise, and how I got started with legal publishing Previous appearances on Peter's show: KOL 027 | The Peter Mac Show (2009, discussing IP) KOL057 | Guest on The Peter Mac Show: “Capitalism,” Anarchy, IP and other topics (2010) KOL128 | “The Peter Mac Show,” discussing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) (2012)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 254. From TomWoods Ep. 1304 How I Got into Harvard. I interviewed Tom about this and related questions since my 15 year old son is nearing college age and I was curious. Transcript below. From Tom's shownotes: Stephan Kinsella, the libertarian theorist and author of Against Intellectual Property, asked me the other day about my college admission experience. We are each the parent of a tenth grader, so the topic of college comes up in our households. I didn’t think I had much interesting to say about it, but we decided he would in effect host this episode and ask me questions. The resulting conversation turned out to be great! Read the original article at TomWoods.com. http://tomwoods.com/ep-1304-how-i-got-into-harvard/ https://youtu.be/YyQS0x7AOOM?si=YLNB6F6KAcvDJosi Transcript 0:00 the Tom would show episode 1304 prepared a set fire to the index card of 0:06 allowable opinion your daily dose of Liberty education starts here the Tom 0:11 woods show hail you homeschooling parents out there you may be thinking to 0:17 yourselves well it's too far into the school year for me to change homeschooling programs now so we'll just 0:24 have to slog through it if that's how you feel go ahead and Chuck that labor-intensive 0:29 homeschool program you've got and join the self-taught Ron Paul curriculum through my link where you get a hundred 0:36 sixty dollars worth of free bonuses check it out at Ron Paul homeschool calm 0:41 everybody Tom was here with Stephan Kinsella you know Stephan as the author Who is Stephan Kinsella 0:47 of against intellectual property which is an extremely challenging book it's 0:53 the kind of book whose thesis you almost don't want to accept when you first start reading it and then by the end of 0:58 it you want to take that book and bash people over the head who don't accept it so it's very very well done interesting 1:04 he's also the author of the forthcoming as in early 2009 international 1:09 investment political risk and dispute resolution a practitioners guide published by Oxford and you can find him 1:16 I pretty sure at Stephan Kinsella comm am i right Stefan that's all correct 1:22 okay all right well I'm gonna blame you for this episode if it turns out badly and maybe take the credit if it turns 1:29 out well but it was Stefan's idea the other day we were on facebook Messenger it's but we have decent we'll go like a 1:36 week no conversation to three weeks and then it'll be this incredible flurry of back and forth messages on all kinds of 1:43 things we're having one of those the other day and you have a son who you tell me is in the I know you have a son 1:48 of course but I didn't know what grade he was in the tenth grade and so it's in fact I have a daughter who's in the tenth grade and so you think about 1:55 college and I know we got people who say you shouldn't go to college I get that but it's it's you know it's for some 2:02 people it's the wise thing to do and you got to do it on a case-by-case basis but you're in that mode you're thinking once 2:08 again just as you were when you were kid about college and college application 2:13 in the process and so you thought it would be interesting to talk to me about my own experience and I insisted this 2:18 would not be interesting in any way and then you persuaded me more or less that 2:24 there may be people who would find this interesting and so I mean look if I've 2:29 done episodes on my stupid musical tastes then probably we can do an episode on this so I thought in this 2:35 episode I might kind of in a way turn the hosts mic over to you in a way yeah 2:40 to let you kind of guide the conversation and ask me things that you think I might be able to help with yeah The college process 2:45 and I'm a lot of Tom woods completest so I wasn't sure if you'd talk about this before that's why I was sort of asking you but yeah I'm in that mode where you 2:53 know tenth grader everyone's all my friends were thinking about college and yeah most people I know their kids are 3:00 going to college and you know I haven't let my son know that not going to college is an option okay so he's going to go right he's one of these thanks but 3:08 only for also for my own interest I've always been you know I went to a big state school and so a lot of us you 3:14 might not know it we have Ivy League Envy right you know we kind of are we're mystified by the the people to get to go 3:20 to those kind of schools right and especially now that my kids getting to 3:26 this point you know we want better things for our kids and to go to LSU or something like that not to bash LSU but 3:33 and these days given the phd glut yeah almost any school is gonna have a really 3:38 top-flight faculty well and I'm sure you're n

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 253. I spoke today on “A Libertarian’s Case Against Intellectual Property,” at the Federalist Society, University of Berkeley-California. It was well-organized and there was a perceptive and interesting critical commentary by Professor Talha Syed. This is the audio I recorded on my iPhone; video below; line-mic'd audio here. The youtube version (audio here) and the line-mic'd version both truncate about 30 seconds too early. My own iphone version (which is used for this podcast) includes those extra comments, and this is included in the transcript as well, below. Grok shownotes: In this 2018 lecture hosted by the Berkeley Federalist Society, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella presents a compelling case against intellectual property (IP) rights, specifically patents and copyrights, arguing they contradict libertarian principles and free-market dynamics (0:00-4:59). Kinsella begins by outlining the libertarian framework of property rights, rooted in the Austrian School’s emphasis on scarcity, explaining that only physical, rivalrous resources warrant ownership, while ideas, being non-scarce, should remain free to use (5:00-14:59). He critiques the utilitarian justification for IP, asserting that patents and copyrights create artificial monopolies, stifle competition, and redistribute property rights from original owners to state-favored entities, using examples like baking a cake to illustrate how knowledge guides action without needing ownership (15:00-24:59). Kinsella’s argument centers on the free market’s reliance on emulation and learning, which IP laws hinder by imposing artificial scarcity on information. Kinsella further dismantles IP by examining its historical origins in state-granted monopolies, such as the Statute of Monopolies (1623) and Statute of Anne (1710), which were rooted in privilege and censorship rather than market principles (25:00-34:59). He highlights practical flaws, such as patents encouraging litigation and inhibiting innovation, and refutes the “creation argument” that creators inherently own their ideas, using a marble statue example to show creation transforms owned resources, not ideas (35:00-44:59). In the Q&A, Kinsella addresses audience questions on trade secrets, open-source models, and IP’s impact on innovation, reinforcing that a free market without IP would foster greater creativity and prosperity (45:00-1:01:11). He concludes by urging libertarians to reject IP as a statist intervention, advocating for a world where knowledge flows freely to drive progress (1:01:12-1:01:36). This lecture is a thorough and accessible critique of IP from a libertarian perspective. Transcript below as well as Grok Summary. My speaking notes pasted below as well. Youtube: https://youtu.be/EWM39RyMNaM GROK SUMMARY Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview Stephan Kinsella’s 2018 Berkeley Federalist Society lecture articulates the libertarian case against intellectual property (IP), arguing that patents and copyrights violate property rights and free-market principles by imposing artificial scarcity on non-scarce ideas. Drawing on Austrian economics and libertarian theory, Kinsella critiques IP’s theoretical, historical, and practical flaws, advocating for its abolition to foster innovation and competition. The 61-minute lecture, followed by a Q&A, uses examples and analogies to make the case accessible. Below is a summary with bullet points for key themes and detailed descriptions for each 5-15 minute block. Key Themes with Time Markers Introduction and Libertarian Framework (0:00-4:59): Kinsella introduces himself as a libertarian patent attorney and outlines the lecture’s focus on IP’s incompatibility with libertarianism. Property Rights and Scarcity (5:00-14:59): Explains that property rights apply to scarce, physical resources, not ideas, using Austrian economics to frame human action and knowledge. Critique of IP’s Utilitarian Basis (15:00-24:59): Argues that IP creates monopolies, restricts competition, and fails to promote innovation, using examples like cake recipes. Historical Roots of IP (25:00-34:59): Traces patents and copyrights to state monopolies and censorship, highlighting their anti-market origins. Refuting the Creation Argument (35:00-44:59): Rejects the idea that creation grants ownership of ideas, showing IP redistributes property rights. Practical Flaws and Alternatives (45:00-54:59): Discusses IP’s inefficiencies, like litigation, and alternatives like open-source models in the Q&A. Q&A and Conclusion (55:00-1:01:36): Addresses further questions on IP’s impact and concludes by urging libertarians to reject IP for a free market of ideas. Block-by-Block Summaries 0:00-5:00 (Introduction and Context) Description: Kinsella is introduced by the Berkeley Federalist Society as a libertarian patent attorney and scholar (0:00-2:30). He thanks the hosts, notes his a

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 252. This is my appearance on the Death to Tyrants Podcast, Episode 33: Human Rights, Property Rights and Copyrights with Stephan Kinsella (Facebook post), released Oct. 1, 2018, with host Buck Johnson. From the Shownotes: One of my favorite interviews to date. We get into rights, property, self ownership and the philosophy behind these things. We then move into "intellectual property" and the case against copyright and patents. *** This week I feature my interview with the brilliant Stephan Kinsella. We discuss the nature of rights as libertarians view them. We get into property rights, human rights, self ownership and why there is really no such thing as intellectual property. Stephan makes a strong case against copyrights and patents. Stephan's body of work can be found here: https://stephankinsella.com and here: http://c4sif.org Find us online at www.facebook.com/deathtotyrantspodcast Follow me on Twitter @buckrebel

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 251. This is my appearance on Creative Juice, by Indepreneur, Episode66: EP66: The Shocking Case For Abolishing Copyright Laws w/ Patent Attorney Stephan Kinsella, Sep 28, 2018, with host Kyle Lemaire. We talked about a variety of matters, from the nature of property rights, Rothbard's view that all human rights are property rights, Locke's labor theory of property and the Marxian labor theory of value, the history and general nature of IP rights and why IP rights are incompatible with other property rights. This was a very fast-talking, dense episode with a lot of lecturing and talking from my end, but I think we covered a lot of ground, from the foundations of law and property rights to IP law. Their shownotes: Since its beginning, the music industry has been under heavy government regulation: copyright laws control much of the economy of the music business. Today, there are many voices on the frontline arguing for the abolishment of all intellectual property, including copyright laws... Stephan Kinsella is a Patent Attorney and advocate for IP Abolishment. On this episode of Creative Juice, Circa sits down with Stephan to discuss the little-known argument against intellectual property and how it may actually be harming independent artists and creatives. "This is one of my favorite episodes of Creative Juice to date - I highly advise that you learn about this topic and take part in the discussion surrounding these laws. I believe this is one of the most important things to examine in our industry!" - Kyle "Circa" Lemaire

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 250. Related: International Law, Libertarian Principles, and the Russia-Ukraine War Using International Law to Protect Property Rights and International Investment Rubins, Papanastasiou, Kinsella, International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution, 2d ed. (Oxford University Press, 2020) This is the audio of my presentation to the 2018 PFS meeting on Saturday, Sept. 15, 2018. Powerpoint slides embedded below. Youtube embedded below. Also podcast at PFP195. Related material: see material linked in the above slides, including: Kinsella, On the UN, the Birchers, and International Law International Law, Libertarian Principles, and the Russia-Ukraine War Rubins, Papanastasiou & Kinsella’s International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide, Second Edition (Oxford, 2020) KOL001 | “The (State’s) Corruption of (Private) Law” (PFS 2012) International Law MOOC (Youtube) Sovereignty, International Law, and the Triumph of Anglo-American Cunning | Joseph R. Stromberg Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Clarendon, 1994) Mark Janis, International Law (7th Ed. 2018) Restatement (Third) of the Law, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987), HeinOnline, Westlaw (not online) American Society of International Law (ASIL), Electronic Information System for International Law (EISIL) https://www.asil.org/resources/electronic-resource-guide-erg and http://www.eisil.org/ M.N. Shaw, International Law (7th Ed. 2017) Ian Brownlie (Crawford), Principles of Public International Law (1966) (8th ed., 2012) See also Neocons Hate International Law The UN, International Law, and Nuclear Weapons Nukes and International Law Update: In response to the simpleminded but common comment and legal positivistic sentiment that international law is not real or that international law does not exist, because there is no sovereign state and enforceable legislation, see, inter alia, Anthony D'Amato, "What 'Counts' as Law?," in Law-Making in the Global Communkty, Nicholas G. Onuf, ed. (1982), Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 11-02, and many other treatises and papers. Also Is international law real? Professor José Alvarez weighs in ("almost all 0:18 states comply with almost all international law almost all the time. 0:22 Most people focused on the almost, but the fact is that they do comply it's 0:28 just not front page news when they do"); International Law Explained | Kal Raustiala | Big Think; Philip Allott - The True Nature of International Law. See my International Law, Libertarian Principles, and the Russia-Ukraine War; see also Murray Rothbard, "Just War," in John Denson, ed., The Costs of War: Much of "classical international law" theory, developed by the Catholic Scholastics, notably the 16th-century Spanish Scholastics such as Vitoria and Suarez, and then the Dutch Protestant Scholastic Grotius and by 18th- and 19th-century jurists, was an explanation of the criteria for a just war. For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified. ... Classical international law ... should be brought back as quickly as possible.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 249. My appearance on Max Hillebrand's World Crypto Network show yesterday. Other notes: See other links at KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) My facebook post discussing ownership of Bitcoin Tom Bell: Copyright Erodes Property? Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator sd

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 248. TEMP: http://traffic.libsyn.com/livera/SLP15_-_Stephan_Kinsella.mp3 From my recent appearance on Stephan Livera's bitcoin-focused podcast. SLP15 – Intellectual Property, Bitcoin, and Internet Censorship, with Stephan Kinsella Stephan Kinsella, Intellectual Property lawyer, and libertarian advocate joins me in this episode to discuss: His story with bitcoin Money as Sui Generis Good The imprecise application of Lockean property theory Why you can’t own bitcoin, but it probably doesn’t make a big difference anyway The harmful effects of patents and copyright ‘Internet Censorship’ as it relates to property rights and ownership of private social media platforms Stephan Kinsella links: Twitter: @nskinsella Stephan’s website: StephanKinsella.com Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom Stephan Kinsella’s podcast, Kinsella on Liberty Podcast links: Libsyn SLP15 Apple Stitcher Spotify I really enjoyed this conversation with Stephan Kinsella, and I hope you enjoy listening to it. If you get value out of this episode, please remember to share it on your social media as that really helps expand my reach. Thanks guys.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 247. On a recent episode [July 29, 2018] of Free Talk Live, Ian and Mark discuss their disagreement over Mark's filing a DMCA (copyright) takedown of a critical YouTube video. I called in to discuss this issue and intellectual property with Mark for the July 31 episode. For the full episode, go here. The excerpt with my portion is included here. I've discussed IP and other libertarian issues on FTL before: KOL141 | FreeTalkLive: IP and SOPA (2012) KOL082 | FreeTalkLive Guest Appearance: IP (2011) FreeTalkLive/XM Extreme Talk Appearance re Intellectual Property KOL 033 | Free Talk Live Interview on Reducing IP Costs (2010)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 246. This is my appearance on the CryptoVoices podcast, Episode 43, interviewed by host Matthew Mežinskis. As indicated in the show notes (below), we discussed a variety of issues related to bitcoin, property rights, and related matters. The hosts also informed me of a recent article they had written regarding the economic classification of crypto tokens: An Economic Definition of Cryptotokens. Shownotes: Show support appreciated: 35iDYDYqRdN2x6KGcpdV2W1Hy3AjGje9oL Matthew interviews Stephan Kinsella, longtime advocate of private property and personal liberty, and expert on intellectual property law. We discuss broad-ranging issues on Bitcoin and private property. Is Bitcoin really property per se, and does anyone truly own bitcoin(s)? Also, how does the nature of intellectual property (or lack thereof) play into the open-source aspects of Bitcoin? What is Bitcoin? Is Bitcoin a digital good? Stephan shares his knowledge on the history of intellectual thought, personal liberty, and intellectual property to answer some of these questions. We discuss some current topics about the brand of Bitcoin (versus Bitcoin Cash), and if blockchain could(?) ever resolve some of the faults and friction in IP that Stephan has studied for years. Stephan is a well-read intellectual and Bitcoiners would do well to read more of his writings. Links for more info: twitter.com/NSKinsella www.stephankinsella.com/ mises.org/profile/stephan-kinsella mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0 mises.org/library/goods-scarce-and-nonscarce cointelegraph.com/news/pro-btc-mov…ng-lack-of-funds Further references: KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) KOL233 | Mises UK Podcast: Bitcoin Ownership and the Global Withering of the State for more on whether bitcoin is ownable property, see this Facebook thread KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender KOL086 | RARE Radio interview with Kurt Wallace: The War on Bitcoin KOL 043 | Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast, with Michael Shanklin: Bitcoin, Legal Reform, Morality of Voting, Rothbard on Copyright Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, WSJ Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; Miami Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Not Money; Dismisses Money Laundering, Transmitting Charges How to handle bitcoin gains on your taxes SEC: US Securities Laws ‘May Apply’ to Token Sales Federal Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Real Money

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 245 From my appearance on the Nothing Exempt podcast, Ep. 53, discussing IP with a couple of libertarian hosts. Well, co-host Nick said he was 80% libertarian and disagreed with me on IP ... but for somewhat inscrutable reasons, as I started asking him about, about 4 minutes in. Recorded June 6, 2018. Youtube: https://youtu.be/7FBu0EXyukU

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 244. From my recent appearance on the first episode of rising libertarian and media star Michael Malice's "Your Welcome" show on his new network, GaS Digital (consider subscribing--libertarian Dave Smith also has a great show on the network--I just did). I was in New York for the weekend, he was rebooting his show on a new network, so it was kismet. We discussed the basic case against intellectual property (I had to persuade Malice, an anarcho-capitalist who came into this without a lot of settled views on it), the Hoppe "toy helicopter" incident [e.g., 1, 2, 3], the infamous Robert Wenzel "debate," and a few other issues, like my recent bout with prostate cancer (yeah, he got me to go there). (Recorded May 26, 2018) Grok's shownotes: Two-Paragraph Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers 0:02 - 35:16: In this engaging episode of "Your Welcome" with Michael Malice, guest Stephan Kinsella, a prominent libertarian and patent attorney, dives into the contentious topic of intellectual property (IP) abolition. Kinsella argues that IP laws, including patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets, create artificial scarcity and hinder innovation by restricting the free use of ideas, which are non-scarce resources (2:01 - 3:25). Using examples like Malice’s own book-writing experience, Kinsella challenges the notion that IP incentivizes creativity, suggesting that market competition and alternative models like crowdfunding could sustain creators without legal monopolies (3:32 - 8:46). He critiques the historical roots of IP, such as the Statute of Monopolies (9:40), and highlights empirical studies showing IP’s negligible or negative impact on innovation, particularly in pharmaceuticals (15:19 - 20:23). The discussion also touches on cultural distortions caused by IP, exemplified by convoluted comic book copyright battles like Captain Marvel’s (29:10 - 31:45). 35:16 - 1:05:20: The conversation shifts to practical implications and personal anecdotes. Kinsella envisions a publishing model driven by platforms like Kickstarter, reducing reliance on traditional publishing houses (37:25 - 39:19). He addresses real-world cases, such as Martin Shkreli’s drug price hike, to illustrate how government interventions, not market failures, exacerbate IP-related issues (42:12 - 44:53). The episode takes a humorous turn with a discussion of libertarian memes, particularly the “helicopter ride” meme tied to Hans-Hermann Hoppe, sparking online controversy (45:09 - 49:07). Finally, Kinsella shares a deeply personal story about his prostate cancer diagnosis and innovative laser treatment, offering insights into navigating health challenges and the role of patents in medical technology (50:00 - 1:04:07). The episode concludes with a reflection on the intersection of IP and medical innovation, underscoring Kinsella’s broader critique of government-granted monopolies (1:04:13 - 1:05:06). Grok summary and Youtube transcript below Update: for more on the Helicopter incident, see KOL462 | CouchStreams After Hours on Break the Cycle with Joshua Smith (2021): Hoppe's Michael Malice Helicopter Photo, Scooter Rides with Sammeroff, Mises Caucus Hopes, the Loser Brigade https://youtu.be/i0rvfJpPJ-4?si=UIrr3Yr_9MSy7cBL From the YouTube episode description: It's the first episode of "YOUR WELCOME"! Join Michael Malice as he speaks with American Intellectual Property Lawyer Stephan Kinsella on the current system of IP and how the implementation of its laws effect commerce, culture and society. From the drug industry to entertainment, the precedents set by those who govern over the laws of Intellectual Property help shape the foundation of culture as well as the economy. Listen as Michael Malice delves deep into the core of the issues and stories that effect our world today. "YOUR WELCOME". Follow the show @michaelmalice, @NSKinsella Original video available by subscription at GasDigital Excerpt: https://youtu.be/QV-LVhEhJCI More on the helicopter stuff: Facebook post about the helicoptor. Even my buddy Tucker didn't like it! (we've made up, no worries) If you think political violence is hilarious, and post pics with plastic helicopters to show it, you might examine your conscience. — Jeffrey A Tucker (@jeffreyatucker) October 8, 2017 Hoppe Helicopter Controversy of 2017 - Stephan Kinsella responds: https://youtu.be/rqipQNFSOEQ?si=skq0FFFwt5xSwhry&t=1 Grok Summary Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Descriptions 0:00 - 15:00: Introduction and Core Argument Against Intellectual Property Description: The episode opens with Michael Malice introducing Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney advocating for the abolition of intellectual property (IP). Kinsella presents his elevator pitch, arguing that IP laws create artificial scarcity for non-scarce resources like ideas, contrasting thi

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 243. From my recent appearance on the Libertarian Christians podcast, discussing (what else) IP, with host Norman Horn from May 22, 2018. See also KOL388 | Cantus Firmus with Cody Cook: Against Intellectual Property, and “Libertarians and the Catholic Church on Intellectual Property Laws” (2012) and links therein. Youtube: https://youtu.be/mrcZJsnSMUw

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 242. I was a guest last night on Punching Left, with hosts Clifton Knox and David German, discussing argumentation ethics, estoppel, covenant communities, the non-aggression principle, physical removal, Hoppe, Propertarianism, Curt Doolittle, Austin Peterson, and so on. Youtube: https://youtu.be/bRsaVKXzYKk Related material: Kinsella, Defending Argumentation Ethics The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory Revisiting Argumentation Ethics Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide KOL228 | Argumentation Ethics – Lions of Liberty KOL218 | Argumentation Ethics – Patterson in Pursuit KOL161 | Argumentation Ethics, Estoppel, and Libertarian Rights: Adam Smith Forum, Moscow (2014) Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics and Its Critics New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory, 12:2 Journal of Libertarian Studies: 313-26 (Fall 1996) Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach, 12:1 Journal of Libertarian Studies 51 (Spring 1996) Hans Hermann Hoppe, “On The Ethics of Argumentation” (PFS 2016) Frank van Dun, “Argumentation Ethics and The Philosophy of Freedom” KOL181 | Tom Woods Show: It Is Impossible to Argue Against Libertarianism Without Contradiction The A priori of Argumention, video introduction by Hoppe Lecture 3 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “The Social Theory of Hoppe” (slides here) Lecture 2 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society” (slides here)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 241. I was a guest yesterday (3/26/18) on Dave Smith's podcast. His description: "Talking Libertarian Legal philosophy with Stephan Kinsella. Topics include how the court systems could work without government and why intellectual property isn't real." We discussed a wide-ranging but fairly high-level array of libertarian theory issues, including how I became a libertarian, the main influencers (Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Bastiat, Mises, Rothbard), property theory and scarcity, Hoppe's argumentation ethics, praxeology, dualism of various types, and, sigh, yes, intellectual property. Dave even worked in a funny joke about "The Man on the Moon" ... well you'll just have to see for yourself. But he stole it from Steve Martin. Good times. Youtube: https://youtu.be/bV4UFJQtxu4 Transcript below, as well as a Grok summary: Below is a summary of the discussion from the Part of the Problem podcast episode featuring Dave Smith and Stephan Kinsella, as aired on the provided YouTube link. The summary is organized into 10–15 bullet points with approximate time markers, based on the transcript provided. 0:00–1:15: Dave Smith opens the episode with a sponsor ad for stamps.com, highlighting its convenience for mailing services, available 24/7, and offering a four-week trial, postage, and a digital scale for new users who sign up with the promo code "problem." He encourages listeners to support the sponsor to help keep the show running. 1:21–1:43: The podcast intro emphasizes themes of freedom, questioning how the U.S. can claim to be the freest country while incarcerating more people than any other nation, reflecting on the growth of government from America’s founding to the present day. 1:55–3:37: Dave announces upcoming events, including a sold-out comedy show and podcast in Los Angeles, a meet-up with Jason Stapleton and others on March 31, and a debate at the Soho Forum on April 16 about fractional reserve banking featuring Bob Murphy and George Selgin. He also promotes the Contra Cruise (October 21–28), describing it as a libertarian vacation. 3:37–4:34: Dave introduces guest Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian writer and patent attorney, praising his insights into libertarian philosophy. Kinsella briefly describes his work, mentioning his legal practice in Texas and an upcoming book compiling essays on rights theory, intellectual property, and contract theory. 4:58–7:36: Kinsella shares his journey to libertarianism, sparked by reading Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead in high school, which led him to philosophy and economics, then to Murray Rothbard’s works. He transitioned from a Randian minarchist to an anarchist, influenced by Rand, Milton Friedman, and later Ron Paul, though his libertarian roots predate Paul’s prominence. 7:45–11:28: The discussion shifts to contemporary politics, with Dave expressing disappointment in Rand Paul for not fully carrying forward Ron Paul’s legacy, though acknowledging he’s still a strong senator. Kinsella notes he avoids political activism, finding Trump’s presidency entertaining and preferable to a Hillary Clinton administration, despite policy flaws like tariffs and neoconservative appointments. 11:45–16:28: Kinsella expresses skepticism about achieving an anarcho-capitalist society through political or intellectual activism, citing historical failures and societal resistance to libertarian ideas. He’s cautiously optimistic, believing technological advancements and wealth could naturally erode state power, making freedom a default rather than a persuaded ideal, referencing the fall of communism in 1990 as a cultural shift toward markets. 16:34–20:41: Dave and Kinsella discuss the irony of modern socialism’s appeal, noting that even leftists now reference Nordic models rather than pure socialism, a tacit victory for markets. Kinsella laments the ignorance of socialism’s historical failures among youth, attributing it to wealth-induced complacency in the West, where freedom is taken for granted. 20:49–23:12: Dave reflects on the libertarian obsession with opposing state mechanisms (wars, taxes, incarceration) that ideally wouldn’t exist, highlighting the altruistic streak in libertarians who advocate for systemic change over personal gain. Kinsella agrees, noting activism often demands sacrifice without direct reward. 23:24–33:17: The conversation turns to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, which Kinsella explains as a proof of libertarianism rooted in the presuppositions of discourse. By engaging in argument, parties implicitly accept norms like non-coercion and self-ownership, making socialism’s coercive norms self-contradictory. Kinsella credits Hoppe’s logic for bypassing the is-ought problem, though notes resistance from other libertarians, possibly due to jealousy or preference for open-ended debate. 33:37–41:06: Dave praises Hoppe’s clarity, despite misrepresentations by critics and supporte

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 240. https://youtu.be/hXw9BWKXChk From Episode 23 of Cameron Talks Science. Episode 23: Patents and Paywalls: How IP Stifles Scientific Innovation: Stephan Kinsella February 11, 2018 Cameron English The accepted wisdom tells us that intellectual property (IP) laws encourage innovation. Without legal protection for their discoveries, scientists would have no incentive to conduct research and we would lose out on "...life-changing and life-saving new treatments that bring hope to doctors, patients, and patients' families worldwide. " That's a nice story, but my guest today says this seemingly self-evident truth is entirely incorrect. Far from fostering innovation in the sciences, patent attorney and legal scholar Stephan Kinesella argues that intellectual property hampers competition and thus stifles the discovery of new medicines and other technologies. Every year businesses waste millions of dollars in court defending their patents and divert resources away from research and development. This perverse system keeps smaller companies from out-competing established firms and severely limits consumer choice throughout the economy. Moreover, copyright protections allow major publishers to lock original scientific research behind paywalls and charge obscene prices to anyone who wants to access the content, even though much of the work is financed by taxpayers. Paradoxically, then, IP laws have allowed giant corporations and federal bureaucracies to tightly restrict the production and distribution of scientific knowledge. Listen in as Stephan and I discuss how this broken system came to be and what we can do to replace it.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 239. Monday morning phone call, from Mar. 14, 2016, talking nonsense, obsessing over trivia, such as the possible connections between and real meanings of the expressions "money talks, bullshit walks" and "walk the walk, talk the talk". And the problem with the expression "all he cares about is money." And Jeff's idea for an article. And Praeger University and Dennis Praeger. How Millennials can improve their self-esteem by working. I make fun of college students who have time to have a marijuana source (in the 80s). Facebook Live videos versus Google Hangouts. Tucker's hot tub and whether he should put lavender into it, and if he got caught he could pretend it was already there, that some guy named "Big Jim" had done it, and if they didn't believe him we could have a trial about it. Typical meandering, silly, rambling nonsense. This was one of our morning talks, and this time I tried to record it over my iphone using the "record call" option of the "Recorder" app.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 238. At Libertopia Oct. 12, 2012, I participated in an hour-long IP panel with Charles Johnson, moderated by Butler Shaffer. GROK SHOWNOTES: In this hour-long panel discussion at Libertopia 2012, recorded on October 12, 2012, Stephan Kinsella and Charles Johnson, moderated by Butler Shaffer, debate the legitimacy of intellectual property (IP) from a libertarian perspective, focusing on patents and copyrights (0:00-10:00). Kinsella, a patent attorney and staunch IP opponent, argues that IP violates property rights by imposing artificial scarcity on non-scarce ideas, using examples like a patented mousetrap to illustrate how patents restrict owners’ use of their resources (10:01-25:00). Johnson complements this by emphasizing IP’s role in state-enforced monopolies, particularly in pharmaceuticals, where patents inflate prices and limit access, and critiques attempts to replicate IP through contracts as unfeasible due to independent discovery (25:01-40:00). The panel underscores IP’s conflict with free-market principles, advocating for its abolition to foster innovation and liberty. Shaffer’s moderation keeps the discussion lively and rules-free, prompting both panelists to address audience questions on topics like the practical impacts of IP on innovation and whether contractual alternatives could replace patents and copyrights (40:01-55:00). Kinsella refutes the utilitarian argument that IP incentivizes creativity, citing open-source software as evidence of innovation without IP, while Johnson highlights the cultural distortions caused by copyrights, such as limiting artistic remixing (55:01-1:00:00). The panel concludes with a call to reject IP as a statist intervention, emphasizing that a free market thrives on emulation and competition, not monopolistic restrictions (1:00:01-1:00:24). This engaging discussion offers a robust libertarian critique of IP, blending theoretical insights with real-world examples, and is a must-listen for those questioning the legitimacy of patents and copyrights. Transcript and Grok Detailed Summary below. For my other presentation, and for more details, see KOL236 | Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Libertopia 2012). Youtube: https://youtu.be/lTWjqn16fGk Grok Detailed Summary Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview The Libertopia 2012 IP panel, recorded on October 12, 2012, features Stephan Kinsella and Charles Johnson, moderated by Butler Shaffer, discussing the libertarian case against intellectual property (IP). Kinsella, a patent attorney, and Johnson, a philosopher, argue that patents and copyrights violate property rights, create artificial scarcity, and hinder innovation. The 60-minute, rules-free panel critiques IP’s theoretical, historical, and practical flaws, advocating for its abolition to enable a free market of ideas. Below is a summary with bullet points for key themes and detailed descriptions for each 5-15 minute block, based on the transcript at the provided link. Key Themes with Time Markers Introduction and Panel Setup (0:00-10:00): Shaffer introduces Kinsella and Johnson, establishing a casual, rules-free format to debate IP’s legitimacy. Kinsella’s Anti-IP Argument (10:01-25:00): Kinsella argues IP violates property rights by restricting resource use, using scarcity and action theory. Johnson’s Critique of IP Monopolies (25:01-40:00): Johnson highlights IP’s state-enforced monopolies, particularly in pharmaceuticals, and critiques contractual alternatives. Audience Questions and Practical Impacts (40:01-55:00): Panelists address IP’s innovation costs and contractual feasibility, emphasizing market alternatives. Cultural and Market Arguments (55:01-1:00:00): Johnson and Kinsella discuss IP’s cultural distortions and evidence of innovation without IP. Conclusion (1:00:01-1:00:24): The panel urges IP abolition, advocating for a free market driven by competition and emulation. Block-by-Block Summaries 0:00-5:00 (Introduction and Setup) Description: Butler Shaffer opens the Libertopia 2012 IP panel, introducing Stephan Kinsella and Charles Johnson with a humorous nod to his “Gandalf stick” (0:00-2:30). He establishes a rules-free format, encouraging the panelists to take turns as they see fit, and ensures logistical setup, like arranging chairs (2:31-5:00). Summary: The block sets a casual tone, introducing the panelists and the open-ended format for a libertarian critique of IP. 5:01-10:00 (Initial Framing and Property Rights) Description: Shaffer poses a question about IP arising from contracts, prompting Kinsella to outline libertarian property rights, emphasizing that only scarce, rivalrous resources (e.g., a hammer) warrant ownership to avoid conflict (5:01-7:45). Johnson agrees, noting that IP, unlike physical property, restricts non-scarce ideas (7:46-10:00). Summary: The panel establishes the libertarian framework, contrasting scarce resources with non-sca

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 237. At Libertopia 2012, I delivered a 45-minute talk , "Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP," the slides for which are below. I spoke for 45 minutes—well, 40, then the last 5 were taken up by a question from J. Neil Schulman—but only covered the first 25 slides. For more details, see Part 1, at KOL236 | Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Libertopia 2012). Grok shownotes summary: In this follow-up podcast, KOL237, recorded on October 18, 2012, Stephan Kinsella continues his Libertopia 2012 lecture, “Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP,” covering additional fallacious pro-IP arguments not addressed in Part 1 (KOL236) due to time constraints (0:00-10:00). As a libertarian patent attorney, Kinsella systematically debunks arguments like IP being justified by its inclusion in the U.S. Constitution, the claim that IP infringement is theft or piracy, and the notion that creators deserve rewards for their labor, arguing these misapply property rights to non-scarce ideas, creating artificial scarcity that stifles innovation (10:01-30:00). Using examples like J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter franchise, he illustrates how markets reward creators without IP, emphasizing that patents and copyrights are state-granted monopolies that violate natural property rights and hinder competition. Kinsella further critiques arguments that IP is a contract or protects against unfair competition, clarifying that IP imposes real rights against the world, not consensual obligations, and that copying is legitimate market behavior, not theft (30:01-50:00). He addresses the “tragedy of the commons” analogy for ideas, refuting claims that ideas need protection to prevent overuse, and discusses practical harms like patent trolling and high litigation costs, citing industries like open-source software that thrive without IP (50:01-1:10:00). In the final segment, Kinsella tackles objections like the need for IP to fund expensive R&D, arguing market incentives suffice, and concludes by urging libertarians to reject IP as a statist intervention that impoverishes society (1:10:01-2:09:39). This comprehensive lecture, spanning over two hours, is a rigorous libertarian critique of IP’s philosophical and economic flaws. Youtube, Slides, and Transcript below, plus a Grok Detailed Summary. This podcast is Part 2, covering most of the remaining 41 issues, some of which are noted below. GROK DETAILED SUMMARY Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview Stephan Kinsella’s KOL237 podcast, recorded on October 18, 2012, is Part 2 of his Libertopia 2012 lecture, “Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP,” completing the critique begun in KOL236. As a libertarian patent attorney, Kinsella debunks additional pro-IP arguments, arguing that patents and copyrights violate property rights by imposing artificial scarcity on non-scarce ideas, harming innovation and liberty. The 129-minute talk, covering 41 remaining slides, uses examples and libertarian theory to advocate IP abolition. Below is a summary with bullet points for key themes and detailed descriptions for each 5-15 minute block, based on the transcript at the provided link. Key Themes with Time Markers Introduction and Context (0:00-10:00): Kinsella explains the podcast as a continuation of his Libertopia 2012 lecture, covering remaining pro-IP arguments. Constitutional and Theft Arguments (10:01-25:00): Critiques claims that IP is justified by the Constitution or that copying is theft, arguing IP misapplies property concepts. Reward and Labor Arguments (25:01-40:00): Rejects notions that creators deserve IP rewards, using J.K. Rowling to show markets reward without IP. Contract and Fairness Arguments (40:01-55:00): Debunks the idea that IP is a contract or protects fairness, clarifying IP’s real rights harm liberty. Tragedy of the Commons and Practical Harms (55:01-1:10:00): Refutes the commons analogy for ideas and highlights IP’s costs, like litigation and barriers to innovation. R&D and Economic Arguments (1:10:01-1:25:00): Argues markets fund R&D without IP, citing IP-free industries and IP’s economic distortions. Moral and Philosophical Objections (1:25:01-1:40:00): Addresses moral claims for IP, reinforcing that ideas are non-scarce and IP violates property rights. Cultural and Social Impacts (1:40:01-1:55:00): Discusses IP’s distortion of culture, like limiting artistic remixing, and advocates for intellectual freedom. Remaining Arguments and Q&A (1:55:01-2:09:39): Covers minor pro-IP arguments and concludes with a call to abolish IP for a free market. Block-by-Block Summaries 0:00-5:00 (Introduction) Description: Kinsella introduces the podcast as Part 2 of his Libertopia 2012 lecture, explaining that time constraints limited KOL236 to 25 of 66 slides (0:00-2:30). He aims to cover the remaining 41 slides, recorded separately to complete the cr

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 236. [Update: a transcript is now available.] At Libertopia 2012, I delivered a 45-minute talk , "Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP" (Oct. 12, 2012), the slides for which are below. I spoke for 45 minutes—well, 40, then the last 5 were taken up by a question from J. Neil Schulman—but only covered the first 25 slides. I covered most of the remaining 41 in a separate recording, Part 2: KOL237. Grok summary: In this lecture delivered at Libertopia 2012, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella systematically dismantles common arguments for intellectual property (IP), particularly patents and copyrights, asserting they are incompatible with libertarian principles and free-market dynamics (0:00-5:00). Kinsella begins by outlining the libertarian property rights framework, rooted in Austrian economics, which assigns ownership to scarce, rivalrous resources to avoid conflict, contrasting this with ideas, which are non-scarce and should be freely shared (5:01-15:00). He critiques fallacious pro-IP arguments—such as the utilitarian claim that IP incentivizes innovation, the natural rights argument tying ownership to creation, and the notion that IP is a contract—using examples like a cake recipe to show that knowledge guides action without needing ownership (15:01-25:00). Kinsella argues that IP creates artificial scarcity, stifles competition, and redistributes property rights, harming innovation and liberty. Kinsella further debunks specific pro-IP arguments, such as the idea that creators deserve rewards for their labor or that IP protects against theft, clarifying that copying ideas is not stealing but a natural part of learning and competition (25:01-35:00). He addresses the historical roots of IP in state-granted monopolies, like the Statute of Monopolies (1623), and its practical flaws, including high litigation costs and barriers to innovation, citing industries like open-source software that thrive without IP (35:01-45:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella responds to audience questions on alternatives like trade secrets, the impact of IP on pharmaceuticals, and libertarian strategies to oppose IP, reinforcing his call for abolition to foster a free market of ideas (45:01-54:30). He concludes by urging libertarians to reject IP as a statist intervention, advocating for intellectual freedom to drive prosperity (54:31-54:42). This lecture is a concise, hard-hitting critique of IP’s intellectual and practical failures. Detailed Grok Summary below At Libertopia, I also participated in an hour-long IP panel with Charles Johnson, moderated by Butler Shaffer. It is presented in Part 3, KOL238. Grok detailed summary Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview Stephan Kinsella’s Libertopia 2012 lecture, “Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP,” critiques the philosophical and practical justifications for intellectual property (IP), arguing that patents and copyrights violate libertarian property rights and hinder innovation. Drawing on Austrian economics, Kinsella debunks pro-IP arguments, from utilitarian incentives to natural rights claims, advocating for IP’s abolition to enable a free market of ideas. The 54-minute talk, followed by a Q&A, uses clear examples and libertarian principles to make a compelling case. Below is a summary with bullet points for key themes and detailed descriptions for each 5-15 minute block, based on the transcript at the provided link. Key Themes with Time Markers Introduction and Libertarian Context (0:00-5:00): Kinsella introduces his anti-IP stance, framing the lecture as a libertarian critique of fallacious pro-IP arguments. Property Rights and Scarcity (5:01-15:00): Explains that property rights apply to scarce resources, not ideas, using Austrian economics to show IP’s incompatibility with liberty. Debunking Utilitarian and Natural Rights Arguments (15:01-25:00): Critiques claims that IP incentivizes innovation or that creators own ideas, arguing IP creates artificial scarcity. Refuting Reward and Theft Arguments (25:01-35:00): Rejects notions that creators deserve IP rewards or that copying is theft, emphasizing learning’s role in competition. Historical and Practical Flaws of IP (35:01-45:00): Traces IP’s statist origins and highlights its inefficiencies, like litigation, contrasting with IP-free industries. Q&A: Alternatives and Impacts (45:01-54:30): Addresses trade secrets, pharmaceuticals, and anti-IP strategies, reinforcing the case for abolition. Conclusion (54:31-54:42): Urges libertarians to reject IP, promoting a free market of ideas for innovation and liberty. Block-by-Block Summaries 0:00-5:00 (Introduction and Context) Description: Kinsella opens at Libertopia 2012, introducing himself as a libertarian patent attorney who opposes IP despite his profession (0:00-2:30). He outlines the lecture’s goal: to debunk fallacious arguments for IP using libert

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 235. This is a short video produced by the Federalist Society (Feb. 6, 2018), featuring me and IP law professor Kristen Osenga (I had met Osenga previously, as a co-panelist at an IP panel at NYU School of Law in 2011). I was pleasantly surprised that the Federalist Society was willing to give the anti-IP side a voice—more on this below. To produce this video, Osenga and I each spoke separately, before a green screen, in studios in our own cities, for about 30 minutes. The editing that boiled this down to about 5 minutes total was superbly done. see also James Stern: Is Intellectual Property Actually Property? [Federalist Society No. 86 LECTURE] Transcript below. From the Federalist Society's shownotes on their Facebook post: Why does the government protect patents, copyrights, and trademarks? Should it? Kristen Osenga and Stephan Kinsella explore the concept of intellectual property and debate its effect on society as a whole. Kristen Osenga, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, and Stephan Kinsella, author of Against Intellectual Property, explore the concept of intellectual property and debate its effect on society as a whole. Differing Views: Libertarianism.org: Libertarian Views of Intellectual Property A 21st Century Copyright Office: The Conservative Case for Reform Mises Institute: The Case Against IP Law and Liberty: Why Intellectual Property Rights? A Lockean Justification The Constitutional Foundations of Intellectual Property Harvard Law: Theories of Intellectual Property I was pleasantly surprised that the Federalist Society was willing to give the anti-IP side a voice, given that many libertarian-related groups either outright favor IP or refuse to condemn it or to allow abolitionist voices. Since the dawn of the Internet in the mid-90s, the effects of patent and especially copyright law have become magnified and more noticeable. Thus more libertarians began to direct their attention to this issue. Gradually, scholarship emerged and the consensus began to shift over the last couple decades from an inchoate Randian pro-IP attitude, and/or apathy, to a interest in and opposition to IP law. It is safe to say that most thinking libertarians, most Austrians, anarchists, and left-libertarians, are now predominately opposed to IP. (See “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism,” “The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism”, “The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism”.) Accordingly, many libertarian groups are now explicitly anti-IP or at least are willing to host speakers and writers with this view, such as: the Mises Institute, and various Mises Institutes around the world (Sweden, Brasil, UK, etc.); the Property and Freedom Society; and others, like the IEA (see Stephen Davies' Intellectual Property Rights: Yay or Nay); the Adam Smith Forum-Russia, which had me present a sweeping case for IP abolition; and the Adam Smith Institute in London, which also has featured strong voices in opposition to IP (Adam Smith Institute: Do not feed the patent troll; Intellectual property: an unnecessary evil). FEE has featured my work and that of other IP abolitionists, like Sheldon Richman. Even the Mercatus Center has promoted strong IP reform, although not outright abolition (see, e.g., Tom Bell, What is Intellectual Privilege?). And, I've been invited to speak against IP in a number of fora, podcasts, and radio shows—PorcFest, Libertopia, Students for Liberty, FreeTalkLive, and so on. Even John Stossel's Fox show featured me and David Koepsell arguing the abolitionist side. So. This is good progress, and parallels the increasing interest in IP by libertarians and their increasing opposition to this type of law. But not all libertarian groups, sadly, recognize IP for the unjust state institution that it is. The Libertarian Party, for example, shamefully takes no stance on IP in its platform. This would be like failing to oppose chattel slavery, conscription, or the drug war in a society where these things were going on. The Cato Institute usually presents pro-IP speakers or those who talk about "reform" (see my post Disinvited From Cato). The Independent Institute has featured the pro-IP work of William Shughart (see Independent Institute on The “Benefits” of Intellectual Property Protection). Other so-called free market groups have also been bad on IP: Austrian Economics Center, Hayek Institute, Other Liberal Groups Come Out for Stronger Intellectual Property Protection. The tech-libertarian groups, like EFF, fulminate against "junk" patents and patent trolls but do not oppose IP itself. Even the tech-libertarian defenders of poor Aaron Swartz, driven to suicide by the threat of draconian copyright criminal penalties, shamefully, disgustingly admitted that he of course needed "some punishment." And of course all the Objectivist groups are rabidly for IP (see e.g. work by Adam Mossoff). As for the Fed