Kinsella On Liberty

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

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 234. Related: Craig Wright: You Don’t Own Your Digital Stuff. NFTs Could Actually Fix That — Without Intellectual Property This is a debate on IP between me and a noted Bitcoin expert, Craig Wright, hosted and moderated by the Vin Armani show. Transcript below along with Grok shownotes. Debating Wright I was in London to attend the inaugural 2018 meeting of Mises UK and to hang with my boys Lee Iglody, Jeff Barr, Doug French, and Hans Hoppe, and had challenged Wright to a debate during a few twitter run-ins (still on-going); I accepted and since I happened to be in London, Wright set it up and we did it at a local studio, with Armani moderating from Vegas. After the debate Further comments appear on my Facebook post and also on the Youtube post (below). Update [7/17/19]: I had my buddies Jeff Barr and Doug French in the room watching, and after the debate, invited Craig to drinks in the hotel bar. We had an interesting, if a bit bizarre and intense, discussion for an hour or so. But in the ensuing weeks, things between us devolved on Twitter. Wright had promised to produce "proof" of patents stimulating innovation during the debate, and apparently, like with many of his promises to produce something, never came through. I pointed that out on Twitter and he eventually ended up blocking me, as well as the podcast's host, Vin Armani, who at the time was, with Wright, a fellow BCH advocate (Vin is still a BCHer but Craig has split off again with his BSV). Of course, in the meantime, Wright has amped up his risible claims to be Satoshi and has been involved in a number of controversial issues in the bitcoin/crypto community. What a character. Also: during the debate I referred to him as Dr. Wright, since he claims to have several PhDs, but now I am not sure he has any legitimate PhDs, other perhaps than one in "theology", so I should not have called him "Dr." (( Update: Grok re Wright PhDs ("In the 2024 UK High Court judgment in COPA v Wright (where Wright was ruled not to be Bitcoin's creator Satoshi Nakamoto), the judge noted Wright's pattern of forgery and plagiarism in other academic work (e.g., his 2008 LLM dissertation had 45 of 58 paragraphs copied verbatim), casting indirect doubt on his degrees. However, the court assumed his qualifications were true for the case, as they weren't directly challenged."); Wikipedia; Craig Wright, "The quantification of information systems risk: A look at quantitative responses to information security issues," Doctoral Thesis, "Charles Sturt University" (2017); 2024 UK High Court judgment in COPA v Wright (pdf), ¶¶ 565–568, 582–585, on pattern of dishonesty," ¶¶ 127–128, 393–395, 400, 926. )) That was too deferential. On the other hand, he did pay for the venue and related costs, so I was being polite. Grok Summary The debate on intellectual property (IP) law, hosted by Vin Armani on January 27, 2018, featured Stephan Kinsella arguing against the resolution that IP is a legitimate and useful institution for blockchain and cryptocurrency, while Craig Wright defended it. In his opening, Wright emphasized the scarcity of good ideas and their implementation, arguing that IP protects individual creators' rights more fundamentally than homesteading physical land, as ideas are created from nothing. He cited natural experiments in countries like India, where reintroducing IP laws allegedly led to a 60% increase in patents by startups, not large companies. Wright contrasted IP with alternatives like trade secrets, using the ZeniMax vs. Oculus case to illustrate how trade secrets create market uncertainty and slow innovation, while patents provide disclosure and clarity. He framed opposition to IP as "intellectual communism," forcing creators to share against their will. Kinsella, in his opening, defined IP as government-granted monopolies (patents for inventions, copyrights for artistic works, plus trademarks and trade secrets) that infringe on genuine property rights in scarce, rivalrous resources. He argued that property rights arise from homesteading or contract to resolve conflicts over physical goods, not ideas, which are non-rivalrous and essential to action but not ownable. Kinsella rejected creation as a source of ownership, noting that transforming owned resources (e.g., iron into a horseshoe) creates wealth, not new rights. He claimed IP hinders innovation, distorts culture, and censors speech, prioritizing justice over utilitarian goals like spurring creativity. In response to questions on legitimacy, Kinsella expanded that IP is unethical and un-libertarian, as it transfers property rights without consent, akin to theft or slavery. He criticized IP's arbitrary expiration (e.g., 17 years for patents) as evidence it's not true property, and argued it violates free speech by restricting expression, such as banning sequels or hyp

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 233. This is my appearance on the Jan. 9, 2018 episode of the Mises UK Podcast, with host Andy Duncan. From his shownotes: On the fourth episode of the MisesUK.Org Podcast, Andy Duncan discusses with Stephan Kinsella the concept, theory, and practice of Bitcoin ownership, amongst other topics, which include the use of Bitcoin as money, the comparison between gold and Bitcoin, and the possible collapse of states everywhere due to the current monetary revolution which states may have been too slow to respond to, for the sake of their own existence. Youtube version: Related material: KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) What do you legally “own” with Bitcoin? Posted on November 23, 2018 by prestonbyrne -- see my comments 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 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? 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 KOL249 | WCN’s Max Hillebrand: Intellectual Property and Who Owns Bitcoin

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 232. This is my appearance on Keith Knight's Youtube show "Don't Tread on Anyone" (Dec. 18, 2017), discussing a hodge-podge of issues such as the fundamentals of libertarianism, why scarcity is an important concept, Hoppe's greatest contributions, and so on. Youtube embedded below.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 231. This is my appearance on Let's Talk ETC! (Ethereum Classic) (Dec. 8, 2017), discussing the referenced topics. The audience is not really a libertarian one so I explained different approaches to libertarianism and some of my thoughts about libertarian activism, the prospects of bitcoin and other technology possibly aiding in the fight for human liberty and the battle against the state, and so on. The host was very good, the discussion very civil, and the audio quality is pretty good. Transcript below. Youtube: https://youtu.be/B4k9Wv7obWA Original Youtube: TRANSCRIPT Let’s Talk Ethereum—Libertarianism, Anarcho-Capitalism & Blockchains Stephan Kinsella and Christian Seberino Let's Talk ETC! (Ethereum Classic) podcast, Dec. 8, 2017 00:00:05 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: Hello and welcome to another edition of Let’s Talk ETC. I’m your host, Christian Seberino. And today I have a special guest with me, Stephen Kinzella. Did I pronounce your name correctly? 00:00:20 STEPHAN KINSELLA: No, Stephen Kinsella, but that’s close enough. 00:00:24 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: Okay, Stephen Kinsella. And so I think you'll agree he's a will be an interesting guest for us. He is – let me read part of his Wikipedia page. So Stephan Kinsella is an American intellectual property lawyer, author and deontological anarcho-capitalist. He attended Louisiana State University where he earned a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in electrical engineering. So he does have knowledge definitely of technical aspects and a Juris Doctor from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center, and he also obtained an LL.M. at the University of London. 00:01:11 He was formerly an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, faculty member of the Mises Academy, and he also co-founded the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, C4SIF, of which he is currently the director. So wow. Welcome, and congrats on that very impressive resume. 00:01:37 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Thank you very much. 00:01:39 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: So the reason I thought it would be interesting to have you on the show, and I think the audience would agree – so a lot of people get into blockchain technology and Ethereum Classic, which is one of the main focuses of the show, because they have libertarian leanings. That's not a requirement, but I do notice it attracts a lot of those people. And they were all – or most of us are technically minded, and so a lot of times people will say things and I'll wonder, well, is what you're saying really backed up by the people that know about the law and economy more than developers? 00:02:26 Would they agree with the things people are saying? And so that's why I think you're a very helpful guest because you bring that that side of things. We don't usually discuss things with lawyers and people that know so much about the economy. So why don't we – why don’t you start with – why don't you describe from your website what a deontological libertarian is? Now, when I searched for that on Wikipedia, it came up that it was the same thing as a natural-rights libertarian. So can you kind of talk about that? 00:03:05 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Sure. Well, keep in mind that I didn't write that page, so that's someone else's description. I don't strongly disagree with it, but I think what the person writing that was trying to get at was there are – there’s considered to be two basic types. Now there are some people that think there are three or more but two basic types of approaches towards, say, ethics. And to simplify it, they’re empirical/utilitarian and natural rights/deontological. 00:03:40 So the first would be kind of a consequentialist approach, which is basically, we're in favor of rules in society and laws that lead to the greatest benefit for society in general. And that's sometimes called utilitarianism. It's an empirical approach that a lot of economists favor, like they try to say, should we adjust the tax code this way? Should we have this kind of law? Who’s it going to benefit? Who’s it going to hurt? And we sum this up, and we try to do the overall best good for society. 00:04:14 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: All right. 00:04:13 STEPHAN KINSELLA: And then the deontological approach, and by the way, people that are familiar with the philosophical idea of ontology, which is the philosophical study of the types of things that exist, the word sounds similar. But they actually have nothing to do with each other. So deontology and ontology have literally nothing to do with each other. Deontological just means an approach that is more rule or principle-based, and that's why it's more geared towards the natural law. So the idea is that we're in favor of rules that are right, no matter what the consequences, so that's the kind of classical division. 00:04:55 Now, someone like me, I wouldn't really – I don't actually think t

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 230. This is my own audio recording of my debate on IP at the Yale Political Union (Facebook) on Tues., Dec. 5, 2017. My opponent was attorney Candice Cook. My initial argument begins at 0:04:40, followed by some Q&A, and my closing argument begins at 1:42:20. I can't say I recommend listening to the comments of others, as none of my arguments were really addressed and the arguments given are pretty incoherent—the arguments for IP were rooted in confused utilitarianism and even the arguments against IP were mostly rooted in anti-property socialistic assumptions. As expected, I lost the debate, by vote of the students, by a vote of about 2:1. Admittedly, it doesn't sound too bad to get 1/3, when not even all libertarians have the right view on IP, but it's worse than that: many of those who voted with me voted against IP for socialistic, anti-property reasons. Everyone is so confused about this topic. I knew this would be the case, I knew it would basically impossible, hopeless, to persuade mainstream left-socialistic types in a short talk of a radical position that rests upon having a sound view of property rights. So I went ahead, giving up hope on the audience, and laid out a systematic argument against IP based the nature of human action, human interaction, and property rights. A systematic, if compressed, argument, that could possibly resonate with some open-minded people someday listening to the recording via this podcast. Thus, my initial presentation was a very condensed (15-20 minutes) but very fundamental explanation of the nature of property rights and why intellectual property is totally incompatible with property rights. Even though I knew it would be a hard sell with Yale undergrads. As can be heard from the "hissing" (their version of booing) whenever anything pro-private-property or capitalistic was mentioned, and from the comments of some of the student political group leaders, there was a good deal of explicit Marxism and socialism among the student. But it was fun nonetheless and they were very civil and respectful. Video of the debate available here and embedded below. (I spoke on IP before a smaller student group back in 2014—see KOL151 | Yale Speech: Balancing Intellectual Property Rights and Civil Liberties: A Libertarian Perspective.)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 229. This is my appearance on the Ernie Hancock "Declare your Independence" show for Nov. 3, hours 2 and 3. There is a "debate"—more of a discussion really—with libertarian-ish gun-rights author Alan Korwin in the first segment. Grok summary shownotes: [0:00–59:24] In this episode of the Ernest Hancock Show (KOL229, Nov. 3, 2017), host Ernest Hancock facilitates a heated debate on intellectual property (IP), specifically copyright, featuring Stephan Kinsella and Alan Korwin. Kinsella, a libertarian legal theorist and outspoken critic of IP, argues that copyright is an unjust state-granted monopoly that stifles innovation and free speech, rooted in historical control mechanisms like the Stationers Company and the Statute of Anne (1709). He emphasizes that ideas are not scarce resources and thus cannot be owned, drawing on Austrian economics and the nonaggression principle to assert that copying is not theft but a natural part of human learning and competition. Hancock aligns with Kinsella, expressing frustration with government-enforced IP restrictions and advocating for a decentralized, piracy-friendly internet where ideas flow freely, citing examples like Napster and crowdsourced films like Iron Sky to illustrate alternative models. [59:25–2:15:31] Alan Korwin, an author and Second Amendment advocate, defends copyright as a natural property right, arguing that creative works like songs (e.g., Chuck Berry’s “Johnny B. Goode”) are scarce, valuable, and inherently owned by their creators. He equates unauthorized copying to fraud or theft, asserting that creators deserve royalties for their work’s use, as facilitated by private organizations like ASCAP. The debate grows contentious as Korwin accuses libertarians of advocating theft due to their opposition to IP, while Kinsella counters that copyright is a statist tool, not a natural right, and that creators can profit without monopolistic protections. Post-debate, Kinsella and Hancock discuss the broader implications of IP, the rise of pirate culture, and the futility of enforcing copyright in the digital age, with Hancock inviting Kinsella to contribute to the Pirates Without Borders’ Third Letter of Captain Marque on communication and IP. They also touch on libertarian politics, criticizing the Libertarian Party’s drift and praising the growing influence of Rothbardian ideas. Grok detailed shownotes and Youtube Transcript below. GROK DETAILED SHOWNOTES: Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Segments Segment 1: Introduction and Setting the Stage (0:00–14:38) Description: Ernest Hancock opens the show with a passionate rant against intellectual property, particularly patents and copyrights, which he views as government-enforced restrictions on ideas. He introduces Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian IP critic, and Alan Korwin, an author who defends copyright. Hancock frames the debate as a clash between freedom-oriented libertarians and those who support state-backed IP protections, referencing the Pirate Party and his own Pirates Without Borders initiative. Kinsella briefly defines patents (for inventions) and copyrights (for creative works), noting their historical roots and the extension of copyright terms, particularly through the Sonny Bono Act. Summary: Hancock rails against IP as a control mechanism, citing examples like patented shoe colors and the Pirate Party’s push for online freedom (0:55–2:59). Introduces Kinsella and Korwin, noting Korwin’s Second Amendment books and his recent presentation influenced by Kinsella’s anti-IP work (3:32–4:40). Kinsella explains patents (17-year term) vs. copyrights (life plus 70 years), highlighting the Founders’ 14-year copyright term and Disney’s role in extensions (5:59–8:34). Discussion of IP in trade agreements as “IP imperialism,” with Hancock questioning enforcement in places like China (8:36–9:59). Hancock mentions crowdsourced films like Iron Sky as alternatives to IP-dependent models (12:00–13:29). Segment 2: Historical Context and Copyright’s Origins (14:39–29:12) Description: Kinsella traces copyright’s history to the printing press, when the Stationers Company in England held a state-backed monopoly on publishing, controlled by the Crown and church. The Statute of Anne (1709) shifted rights to authors but favored publishers, creating gatekeepers. Hancock and Kinsella critique this as state control, with Hancock dismissing government authority over ideas. Korwin joins, defending copyright as a natural property right, arguing that creators own their works (e.g., a book written in a room) as part of a “bundle of rights” alongside realty and personalty. He challenges Kinsella’s anti-IP stance, asserting that copying is theft. Summary: Kinsella details copyright’s roots in the Stationers Company and Statute of Anne, linking it to state monopolies (15:50–18:58). Hancock rejects government’s role in regulating ideas, citing constant changes in copyright

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 228. This is my appearance on Lions of Liberty, Episode 318, with host Marc Clair. We discussed Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "argumentation ethics" defense of libertarian rights, and related issues. Related: “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide” (2011) and Supplemental Resources 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). Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan, Anti-state.com (Sept. 19, 2002) KOL218 | Argumentation Ethics – Patterson in Pursuit March 26, 2017 Hans Hermann Hoppe, “On The Ethics of Argumentation” (PFS 2016) Frank van Dun, “Argumentation Ethics and The Philosophy of Freedom” Kinsella, The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory KOL161 | Argumentation Ethics, Estoppel, and Libertarian Rights: Adam Smith Forum, Moscow (2014) 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 227. This is my appearance on Voluntary Japan Live! with host Graham Smith. We talked about ownership of thoughts, the basics of libertarian property rights and terms like ownership, mind, brain, causation, action, property, and so on, intellectual property, the nature of contracts, and, of course, the dreaded "toy helicopter" controversy! (Brent Ancap had another post about this with additional links and with an excerpt of the video dealing only with the toy helicopter part here; video here.) From the VJ Live! shownotes on Youtube: " Streamed live 4 hours ago Libertarian IP lawyer and writer for Mises.com Stephan Kinsella joins the show tonight for a discussion on IP, ownership, and the difficult topic of the very nature of property, itself. Tonight's talk promises to be lively one, as Stephan and I do not seem to see eye-to-eye on every issue. There are many things that, I think, ought to be ironed out regarding libertarian attitudes toward IP, and the all-too-common knee jerk reactions of anarchists against things even as legitimate as voluntary terms of use contracts. Which contracts, for the record, Mr. Kinsella has stated, are indeed legitimate, if unlikely to be entered into. JOIN THE LIVE CHAT WITH YOUR QUESTIONS! SEE YOU SOON! ***LINKS*** Anarchyball Thread Post: https://www.facebook.com/Anarchyball/... “Information is not ownable. Information should not be property.” ~Stephan Kinsella debates Chris LeRoux, 22:07 https://youtu.be/wgJOeWU1Bek *** “Argumentation Ethics, Estoppel, and Libertarian Rights” Presentation (Moscow. Nov. 2, 2014) https://stephankinsella.com/2014/1... *** Mises Wire: The relation between the non-aggression principle and property rights: a response to Division by Zer0 https://mises.org/blog/relation-betwe... *** Patterson in Pursuit Podcast: " https://youtu.be/M22mq4vA4Ew

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 226. See also PFP186. This is a short interview I did while at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society, for Grosse Freiheit TV. Video embedded below. I think this is perhaps not my best performance, but some may find it of interest.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 225. This is my speech delivered earlier today at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society, Sept. 17, 2017. Video embedded below. Slides used embedded below (or can be downloaded). Transcript below. The subsequent Q&A session for our panel is also embedded below (but not included in the audio RSS stream on this podcast feed). Related: Kinsella, A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 (to be included in Law in a Libertarian World) Williamson Evers, “Toward a Reformulation of the Law of Contracts,” vol. 1, no. 1, J. Libertarian Stud. (1977) Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, ch. 19: “Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts” (1982; 1998) Rothbard “Justice and Property Rights,”Property in a Humane Economy, Samuel L. Blumenfeld, ed. (1974) (online here) Also in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (1974) (online here) and later in The Logic of Action One Kinsella, “Justice and Property Rights: Rothbard on Scarcity, Property, Contracts…,” The Libertarian Standard (Nov. 19, 2010) Kinsella on Liberty podcast: KOL146 | Interview of Williamson Evers on the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract KOL197 | Tom Woods Show: The Central Rothbard Contribution I Overlooked, and Why It Matters More detail in my “Libertarian Legal Theory” course, Mises Academy (2011), Lectures 3-4 (see KOL118) Transcript Reflections on the Theory of Contract by Stephan Kinsella From the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society, Bodrum, Turkey (Sept. 17, 2017) 00:00:11 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Thank you very much, Hans. Thanks again, once again, to you and Gulcin for the invitation. I’m honored and happy to be here. I do believe this is my seventh or eighth time. I figure that if I keep attending every year that, over time, my percentage rate of attendance will asymptotically approach 100%, sort of like the Bitcoin inflation rate. 00:00:36 Anyway, my topic today is reflections on the theory of contract. I do have these slides. I will post them later on my site when I post this talk. And I have some background material here in the beginning and sprinkled throughout the lecture. I was going to make a joke that Hans tends to assign me boring-sounding titles. And I was going through some of the previous ones I’ve done here, which is on property rights and the protection of international investments, patent and copyright, corporations, legislation, and common libertarian misconceptions. But they actually sound pretty juicy to me. I guess I’m just a legal geek or something. 00:01:17 But anyway, when you say we’re going to talk about contract, it sounds like it’s a mundane, boring topic, but I believe this is the key, a proper understanding of contract theory is key to having a solid understanding of what libertarian principles are all about. Libertarians usually view the libertarian theory or principle as the non-aggression principle, or the NAP. And they’ll usually say something like the initiation of violence against others or aggression is impermissible, and they say so we’re against aggression. 00:01:55 And then they’ll just sort of throw in these other things that are sort of attached to it like ornaments to a Christmas tree. They’ll say, and you can’t trespass, and you can’t make a threat, and you can’t breach contract, and of course, you can’t commit fraud, as if these are all implicitly part of what it means to commit aggression, and I’ll go over this later. I think this is—we have to really understand the non-aggression principle is a shorthand for what the libertarian principles are. 00:02:23 But really, aggression is the violence against someone’s body, and all these other things are related to our property theory. So the common understanding of contract even by libertarians is that contracts are binding promises. You say something, and you magically create an obligation. You make something happen. So I’m going to give a little—I have to have one little stunt here. I’m going to have a demonstration. This is my magic wand from Harry Potter. Lumos! Okay, it’s magic, right? The word… 00:02:59 [APPLAUSE] 00:03:01 Thank you. The point is this is an incantation, a magic word, that made something happen in the idea of Harry Potter and magic. And this view is similar to what—how most people think of contracts. You say some magic words like I promise to do this, and therefore, some obligation is magically created. 00:03:23 Now, under the actual law that we’re most used to, which the two main legal systems in the world are the common law and the civil law, which is a type of Roman law. Under the common law, contract is viewed as if there’s an offer made by someone, and then the person to whom the offer is made accepts it, so we say offer plus acceptance equals binding agreement or contract. Okay, so A plus B equals C. 00:03:51 In the common law, this contr

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 224. I was a guest on the Tom Woods show, Episode 998, today, discussing the work and theories of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. More--

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 223. I was interviewed for the Our Interesting Times podcast, by host Tim Kelly, for the Aug. 8, 2017 episode, to discuss the basic case against intellectual property law.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 222. This is my second speech at last weekend's Mises Brasil's 2017 “V Conferência de Escola Austríaca” [5th Austrian School Conference], Mises Brasil, Universidade Mackenzie, São Paulo, Brazil (May 12–13, 2017): “Intellectual Property Imperialism Versus Innovation and Freedom.” The Q&A is included even though the questions are in Portuguese; most answers should make sense given the context. This is a recording from my iPhone; video and higher quality audio will be linked later. The video is embedded here: The slides that I use are embedded below. Slides used for Mises Brasil: My original slides:

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 221. This is my first speech at Mises Brasil's 2017 “V Conferência de Escola Austríaca” [5th Austrian School Conference], Mises Brasil, Universidade Mackenzie, São Paolo, Brazil (May 12–13, 2017): “State Legislation versus Law and Liberty.” The Q&A is included even though the questions are in Portugese; most answers should make sense given the context. This is a recording from my iPhone; video and higher quality audio will be linked later. Update: See also Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society. The Youtube is here: The slides that I use are embedded below. Slides used for Mises Brasil: My original slides: Further resources: KOL001 | “The (State’s) Corruption of (Private) Law” (PFS 2012) KOL129 | Speech to Montessori Students: “The Story of Law: What Is Law, and Where Does it Come From?” KOL199 | Tom Woods Show: The State’s Corruption of Private Law, or We Don’t Need No Legislature “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995), p. 132.1 Condensed version: Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010) Is English Common Law Libertarian? (Powerpoint; PDF) Further reading: Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the Law Watson, Alan, The Importance of “Nutshells” Herman, Shael, The Louisiana Civil Code: A European Legacy for the United States Giovanni Sartori, Liberty and Law Alan Watson, Roman Law and Comparative Law The Story of Law, by John M. Zane (I haven’t finished it yet but liked what read so far) (also online) Arthur Hogue, The Origins of the Common Law Update: see Repealing the Laws of Physics, with this amusing, possibly apocryphal, anecdote: "Mr. Cole explained that to do this you would need a trunk FULL of batteries and a LNG tank at big as a car to make that happen and that there were problems related to the laws of physics that prevented them from... The Obama person interrupted and said (and I am quoting here) "These laws of physics? Who's rules are those, we need to change that. (Some of the others wrote down the law name so they could look it up) We have the congress and the administration. We can repeal that law, amend it, or use an executive order to get rid of that problem. That's why we are here, to fix these sort of issues"."

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 220. This is my interview by Rod Rojas of the Future Gravy show, which focuses on bitcoin and blockchain topics. We discussed how patents harm innovation and various strategies some companies use to try to deal with the patent threat, such as patent pooling, defensive patent licensing, whether Blockstream's Patent Pledge is really a tactic that makes them a patent threat to the blockchain community, and related matters. The video is embedded below. Relevant material: Blockstream’s Defensive Patent Strategy: Patent Pledge EFF: The Defensive Patent License; Blockstream Announces Defensive Patent Strategy; Blockstream: Modified Innovator’s Patent Agreement; EFF: Blockstream Commits to Patent Nonaggression. Kinsella, The Patent Defense League and Defensive Patent Pooling ----, Do Business Without Intellectual Property ----, “Defensive Patent License” created to protect innovators from trolls; probably won’t work ----, Twitter Heroically Promises Not to Use Patents Offensively The Patent Pledge KOL220 | Future Gravy Interview about Blockstream and the Defensive Patent License Bitmex: A blockchain-specific defensive patent licence.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 219. I delivered a talk earlier today for the Houston Property Rights Association (April 28, 2017), “Property: What It Is and Isn’t,” which sets out the framework for how to view property rights in general and then finally turns to intellectual property. The main talk lasted for about the first 30 minutes; the final hour is Q&A. My speech notes (unedited and raw) are below. Property: What It Is and Isn’t Stephan Kinsella Kinsella Law Group, Libertarian Papers, C4SIF.org Houston Property Rights Association · April 28, 2017 Ï When a Great Austrian thinker was asked, “What is Best in Life?” He answered: “To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.” Okay, that was Arnold Scharzenegger as Conan. This recognizes that conflict always possible in human life There are only so many “things” to go around, and if multiple people want it, they can fight violently over it. There can be conflict, precisely because we do not live in a world of superabundance. Garden of Eden etc. we live in a world where conflict is possible Another way to put this: we live in a world of scarce resources Better called “rivalrous” Let’s turn to the ideas of another great Austrian thinker, Ludwig von Mises Praxeology: the logic of human action Structure of human action Humans use knowledge about the world to select, control and employ scarce resources (means of action) to change the future—to achieve ends Notice two crucial ingredients to successful human action: knowledge, and scarce resources/means. This is true of Crusoe alone on his island It is also true of man in society In society there is another way to handle the problem of scarce resources Instead of conflict, we can develop usage or ownership rules, to permit scarce resources to be used peacefully, productively, cooperatively, and without conflict This is the origin and basis of “property”. Alone, a man wants to use a thing: he uses it: he controls it, possesses it. In society, there could be two people who want the same thing, but because it is scarce only one can use it. Usage rules emerge that specify an owner of a given contestable resource. We call this system “property rights” We sometimes call the objects themselves “property” That chair is my property When you use a resource to change the world, in addition to your hands, your body, it becomes an extension of yourself. It becomes identified with the user. “Part of” the user. We might say it is a feature, or characteristic, or an aspect, of the user—or a “property” of the user. My gun, my knife, my fishing net, are how I control the world. I rely on them as I rely on my hands and my eyes. Thus we refer to owned objects as “a property of” the owner. we say he has a “proprietary interest in” the object, he is the proprietor, the owner. He has a property right in that resource. Notice earlier: can say these resources are “characteristics” or “features” or properties of a person’s identity. It would be odd to say “that chair is my characteristic” or “my feature”. Yet we are used to saying “that chair is my property” but what we mean is: a given person is the owner of that resource. A given person has a property right in that resource. A system of property rights, or law, emerges, which determines owners of various resources. Who has a property right in this thing? Who owns it? “Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property.” — FrédéricBastiat This is true of all legal and political systems, even socialist What distinguishes libertarianism and free market, western systems is our property allocation rules. These are: self-ownership (body-ownership), plus: for scarce resources, three rules: Original appropriation (homesteading; Locke) Consensual transfer (contract; gift; bequest) Rectification (restitution) for tort or crime Any other system deviates from these rules and assigns property rights based on some other, non-natural rule. Any other rule is a type of theft or taking of property rights, or a form of slavery Briefly explain basis for the three rules Intellectual Property Patent and copyright “Article I, Section 8of the United States Constitution, empowers the United States Congress: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Is IP “property” —is not the right question. That’s like asking “is IP feature? Is IP characteristic?” Is it compatible with capitalist property allocation rules? Remember distinction between knowledge and resources in human action. Explain IP as “negative servitudes” and contrary to capitalist property allocation rules Rothbard’s “autistic,” “binary” and “triangular” taxonomy of state intervention

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 218. This is Episode 50 of the Patterson in Pursuit podcast, where host Steve Patterson interviews me about Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics. [Update: He does a breakdown of our discussion in Episode 63.] Patterson's description: If we choose to argue, have we presupposed an ethical framework? Is “self-ownership” a concept that cannot coherently be doubted? To help me answer these questions, I’m joined by one of the most prominent supporters of “argumentation ethics” – the theory that says ownership is inescapable, and as soon as we choose to argue, we’re committed to a set of ethical values. Related resources: Kinsella, “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide” (2011) and Supplemental Resources Hans Hermann Hoppe, “On The Ethics of Argumentation” (PFS 2016) Kinsella, New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory Frank van Dun, "Argumentation Ethics and The Philosophy of Freedom" Kinsella, The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory Kinsella, Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 217. This is Episode 14 of the MusicPreneur podcast, "Intellectual Property is the Bastard Child of the Gatekeepers," run by host James Newcomb (recorded Jan. 9, 2017; released Jan. 31, 2017). I appeared on his previous podcast, Outside the Music Box, a while back (KOL204 | Outside the Music Box Interview: The Ins and Outs of Intellectual Property). This one is a fresh, stand-alone discussion where I lay out the case against IP fairly methodically. MusicPreneur shownotes below. See also my A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP. GROK SHOWNOTES: In this interview on the MusicPreneur podcast, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella delivers a wide-ranging critique of intellectual property (IP) laws—especially patents and copyrights—calling them illegitimate state-enforced monopolies rooted in historical gatekeeping, censorship, and privilege rather than genuine property rights (0:00–10:00). Kinsella traces the origins of copyright to pre-printing-press censorship by church and crown, through the Stationers’ Company monopoly, to the 1710 Statute of Anne, and patents to royal letters patent and mercantilist grants (e.g., the 1623 Statute of Monopolies), arguing that both systems were designed to control knowledge and speech, not to protect creators (10:01–25:00). Using Austrian economics, he explains that property rights exist only for scarce, rivalrous resources, while ideas are non-scarce and cannot be owned; IP artificially creates scarcity, restricting how people use their own tangible property (e.g., a patented mousetrap) and stifling competition and innovation (25:01–40:00). Kinsella critiques the economic and cultural harms of IP, including inflated prices in pharmaceuticals, litigation costs, and censorship of expression, contrasting these with IP-free industries like open-source software and fashion that thrive on emulation and first-mover advantage (40:01–55:00). He debunks common pro-IP arguments—the utilitarian incentive story, labor/creation-based claims, and personality theories—labeling them flawed, self-serving, or empirically unsupported, and argues that IP is a modern form of mercantilism that benefits gatekeepers (large corporations, Hollywood, Big Pharma) at the expense of creators, consumers, and freedom (55:01–1:10:00). In the discussion/Q&A portion, Kinsella addresses alternatives (trade secrets, reputation, market incentives), the digital age’s erosion of IP enforcement, and why even small creators would be better off without IP, concluding that the system should be abolished entirely (1:10:01–end). This interview is a clear, provocative libertarian takedown of IP, especially valuable for musicians, creators, and entrepreneurs. Transcript and Grok Detailed Summary below GROK DETAILED SUMMARY 0:00–10:00 (Introduction, Kinsella’s background, and the core thesis, ~10 minutes) Description: Host James Newcomb introduces Kinsella as a patent attorney and libertarian critic of IP. Kinsella explains his unusual position: he has prosecuted hundreds of patents for large companies (Intel, GE, Lucent, etc.) while believing all forms of IP should be abolished. He states his central thesis: IP is the “bastard child of the gatekeepers”—a modern continuation of historical censorship and monopoly privilege, not a legitimate form of property. He briefly previews the historical and economic critique to come. Key Themes: Kinsella’s dual role: patent lawyer who opposes patents/copyrights IP as illegitimate monopoly privilege, not property Framing: IP is rooted in gatekeeping (church, state, guilds, publishers) Summary: Kinsella establishes his credentials and the provocative title, setting up IP as a statist, gatekeeper-derived system rather than a natural right. 10:01–25:00 (Historical origins of copyright and patent: censorship & mercantilism, ~15 minutes) Description: Kinsella traces copyright to pre-printing-press church/state control of scribes, then to the Stationers’ Company monopoly (chartered to control printing), and finally to the Statute of Anne (1710), which shifted the monopoly from printers to authors/publishers but remained a state privilege. Patents originated in royal “letters patent” (open letters granting monopolies), abused by monarchs for revenue/favors, leading to the 1623 Statute of Monopolies. Both systems were originally about control, censorship, and mercantilist privilege, not “property rights.” Key Themes: Copyright as successor to censorship monopolies Patents as royal/mercantilist grants Both were temporary privileges, not natural rights Summary: Detailed historical account showing IP began as censorship and monopoly tools of the state and crown, not as recognition of creators’ natural rights. 25:01–40:00 (Scarcity, property rights, and why IP is conceptually impossible, ~15 minutes) Description: Kinsella explains the Austrian/libertarian view: property rights exist only to allocate scarce, rivalrous resour

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 216. I was a guest recently on Isaac Morehouse's podcast, "Why Intellectual Property Sucks, with Stephan Kinsella" (Oct. 10, 2016), discussing intellectual property and related issues. Isaac's description below, along with the transcript. Is intellectual property law the foundation of an innovative society? Or a racket set up to protect entrenched businesses from competition? Stephan Kinsella joins the show this week to break down intellectual property law. Stephan is a practicing patent attorney, a libertarian writer and speaker, Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF), and Founding and Executive Editor of Libertarian Papers. He is one of the clearest and most compelling thinkers on intellectual property law. We cover the historical context of IP law, the modern day consequences of copyright and patent monopolies, the flaws in common arguments for intellectual property laws, and more. Covered in this episode: How did Stephan become interested in intellectual property? His intellectual evolution on the topic of intellectual property What are copyright, patent, trademarks, and trade secrets? Where did the concept of intellectual property come from? Which IP laws are the most harmful? Fraud vs. Trademarks Libertarian perspectives on IP John Locke’s errors on property that affect us today Why Innovation is stronger without IP (fashion, food, football) Problems with trade secret law Copyright law that existed under common law Why IP is wrong from a deontological and consequentialist point of view How would J.K. Rowling make a living without IP? How to be principled about IP as an entrepreneur while not harming your company Links: www.stephankinsella.com How I Changed My Mind on Intellectual Property by Isaac Morehouse Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella (free) Do business without IP by Stephan Kinsella Episode 14: Harris Kenny on 3D Printing and a World Without Intellectual Property C4SIF.org (Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom) Ayn Rand on IP Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David Levine (Free version) The Case Against Patents by Michele Boldrin and David Levine If you are a fan of the show, make sure to leave a review on iTunes. All episodes of the Isaac Morehouse Podcast are available on SoundCloud, iTunes, Google Play, and Stitcher. Transcript (auto-generated by youtube): 0:02 [Music] 0:17 this is Isaac Morehouse welcome to the podcast where we discuss education 0:22 entrepreneurship big ideas how to put them into practice in the real world and above all how to live free how to go 0:33 from zero to a startup job in nine months you don't need to jump through 0:39 hoops or blast out resumes you can start today praxis combines a 3-month professional 0:46 bootcamp with a six month paid apprenticeship at a startup that leads directly to a 0:52 full-time job startups aren't just for coders sales marketing operations even if you're not 1:00 sure what you're interested in praxis places you with a dynamic growing company where you do work you love 1:06 become part of a team and make a difference praxis is tailored to your goals and your interests coaching 1:13 sessions group discussions with your peers skills training and a portfolio of projects along with the imprensa ship 1:20 create a powerful combination of real world experience and intensive learning 1:26 we are relentlessly committed to helping you discover and do what makes you come 1:33 alive we don't just prepare you for a job we actually give you one no degree 1:39 is required to get started on your career whether you're an ambitious go-getter right out of high school a 1:45 creative thinker who's bored in college or a college grad looking for the next 1:50 step discover praxis great jobs are waiting are you ready 1:58 [Music] 2:10 today I am very excited to have on the show stephan kinsella this is actually Guest introduction 2:15 when I first launched the podcast when I made my first list of potential guests I wanted to have Stefan was on that very 2:21 first list that it's taken over a year for whatever reason to just get him on 2:27 the show and do an episode about intellectual property so Stefan welcome 2:32 to the podcast thanks a lot glad to be here so briefly introducing you and I know your bio is 2:37 much more deep in why'd Stefan is a patent lawyer interestingly enough has 2:44 been for almost 25 years now he also has a podcast he is a scholar has written 2:49 many both sort of popular and scholarly articles on everything from intellectual 2:55 property which is our subject today to you know all kinds of legal theory the 3:01 philosophy of Liberty many many more he's he's kind of the foremost expert on intellectual property certainly from a 3:09 free-market standpoint he's the founder and director of the Center for hold on 3:15 I'm gonna get the name wrong l

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 215. www.stephankinsella.com/kinsella-on-liberty-podcast/ I was a guest recently on the Latter-Day Liberty podcast discussing intellectual property and related issues. Host: Mat Kent. Ep. 19 Intellectual Property Podcast: Play in new window | Download How could a true libertarian claim to be against intellectual property? Aren’t property rights central to the principles of liberty? Stephan Kinsella joins us to discuss the case against IP and why, as libertarians, we should oppose it. About the Guest: Stephan Kinsella is a practicing patent attorney, a libertarian writer and speaker, Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF), and Founding and Executive Editor of Libertarian Papers. Guest’s Book: Against Intellectual Property Guest’s Links: stephankinsella.com Libertarian Papers Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom AuthorMat KentPosted onSeptember 9, 2016

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 214. www.stephankinsella.com/kinsella-on-liberty-podcast/ I was a guest on the fun and zany libertarian podcast "Johnny Rocket Launch Pad," Episode 97. They fired questions at me one after another, and I did my best to field them. The sound effects were added later. From the shownotes page: What are some things libertarians commonly get wrong? What bad habits do we fall into, with regard to philosophy and law? This week we are joined by the intellectual giant Stephan Kinsella, who brings his experience in law, and philosophy to the table. This episode exposes new ways of looking at old philosophies, and we also go into depth about intellectual property. This is an episode you cannot miss! You might even become a better libertarian.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 213. www.stephankinsella.com/kinsella-on-liberty-podcast/ This is a debate between me and one Todd Lewis, hosted by Keith Preston, about self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. Lewis had participated in a decent debate with Walter Block previously, so I agreed to discuss with him, even though he was not clear where he was coming from, what his own position was, or what he hoped to prove by debunking the NAP (whenever someone is opposed to the NAP, I assume they want to justify aggression—I think I'm right). This Lewis character appears to be some kind of "Mennonite" Christian in Ohio, and claims to be a former "fusionist" (some kind of libertarian+conservative) and now some form of Christian conservative who believes in legally punishing homosexuality. I don't think he was ever really a libertarian, to be honest. He attacks a lot of strawmen, and never really responds to my coherent statement of the libertarian vision. He calls this the "Praise of Folly" "podcast" though it is not a podcast since there is no RSS feed. But I'll grant, he was far more civil and even intelligent than others I have debated, on topics like anarchy and IP, such as Jan Helfeld and Robert Wenzel, though that's admittedly a low bar. For related material see: Selected Supplementary Material for Law in a Libertarian World: Legal Foundations of a Free Society What Libertarianism Is How We Come To Own Ourselves What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan (wayback version) KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery Walter Block episode:

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 212. www.stephankinsella.com/kinsella-on-liberty-podcast/ This is my interview, mostly on various anarcho-capitalism issues, by Josh Havins, of the Lafayette County (Mississippi) Libertarian Party: Their episode: “Ask a Libertarian #8 – Stephan Kinsella – Anarcho-Capitalism” (video embedded below). For related material see: What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist The Irrelevance of the Impossibility of Anarcho-Libertarianism Question about the feasibility of anarcho/libertarianism What Libertarianism Is Selected Supplementary Material for Law in a Libertarian World: Legal Foundations of a Free Society

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 211. My interview on the Wake Up Call podcast, Episode 44: Corporations and the Corporate Form. From the shownotes page: Episode Summary Stephan Kinsella joins Adam Camac and Daniel Laguros to discuss corporations and the corporate form, common objections, and state interventions in the area. Related Articles 1. In Defense of the Corporation by Stephan Kinsella (October 27, 2005) 2. Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation by Stephan Kinsella (October 18, 2011) Books Mentioned 1. Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella 2. In Defense of the Corporation by Robert Hessen Related Interview 1. KOL170: Tom Woods Show: Are Corporations Unlibertarian? (January 24, 2015) Previous Appearance 24. The Nature of Property and Problems with Intellectual Property Laws with Stephan Kinsella (Wednesday, March 30, 2016)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 210. This is my interview, mostly on IP, by Josh Havins, of the Lafayette County (Mississippi) Libertarian Party: Their episode: "Ask a Libertarian #6 - Stephan Kinsella - Against Intellectual Property" (video embedded below).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 209. A patent litigator friend of mine in Houston, Sandeep (Sandy) Seth, and I have squabbled about intellectual property law before. So he came over to my house and we had a little conversation where I tried to find a way to get him to see why IP law should be abolished. The results were predictable. The video is embedded below. Background links: “Conversation with an author about copyright and publishing in a free society” “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) Discussion on Facebook “Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright” (Oct. 23, 2012) “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright” (Oct. 23, 2012)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 208. See also KOL387 | The Great IP Debate of 1983: McElroy vs. Schulman. [Transcript available here.] A conversation about intellectual property and libertarian and property theory with my old friend J. Neil Schulman.† We discussed our differing views on IP, as a result of my comments on a recent post Patrick Smith: Un-Intellectual Property. Hey, I tried my best, but we never quite saw eye to eye. For further information, see Neil's posts Human Property, The Libertarian Case for IP; and Media-Carried Property (MCP). See also the comments here to The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism and My Unfinished 30-Year-Old Debate with Wendy McElroy. For further material about Schulman’s logorights theory, see: Query for Schulman on Patents and Logorights; Kinsella v. Schulman on Logorights and IP; Schulman: “If you copy my novel, I’ll kill you”; Replies to Neil Schulman and Neil Smith re IP; Schulman: Kinsella is “the foremost enemy of property rights”; On J. Neil Schulman’s Logorights; Reply to Schulman on the State, IP, and Carson. For some related material discussed, see Classical Liberals and Anarchists on Intellectual Property (discussing LeFevre) The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism (on Konkin) The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 207. A stand-alone episode recorded late at night on my iPhone—had to get it out, thinking about it was keeping me from sleeping. Audio quality is fine, though no pop filter or pro-microphone, as I just used my iPhone. Slight nasal cold leftover from snow-skiing trip altitude sickness is there, but it seems not to be too distracting. See also Kinsella, “Common Misconceptions about Plagiarism and Patents: A Call for an Independent Inventor Defense,” Mises Economics Blog (Nov. 21, 2009); and Kinsella, "If you oppose IP you support plagiarism; copying others is fraud or contract breach," in "Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Intellectual Property" C4SIF. See also this Grok conversation summarizing "why the case for patent and for copyright has nothing to do with plagiarism, contract breach, and fraud, why all these things are distinct, and opposing patent and copyright does not imply favoring fraud, dishonesty, plagiarism, or contract breach." Background material: Against Intellectual Property, "IP as Contract" section Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach (Feb. 3, 2009) The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression (July 17, 2006) Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft” and “piracy” A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 Reply to Van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 18, no. 2 (Spring 2004) See also Gregory N. Mandel, Anne A. Fast & Kristina R. Olson, "Intellectual Property Law’s Plagiarism Fallacy," BYU L. Rev. 2015, no. 4 (2015): 915–83; Gregory N. Mandel, "How people understand intellectual property, creativity and reward," in Abbe E.L. Brown & Charlotte Waelde, eds., Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Creative Industries (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2018), p. 295 et pass.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 206. [Transcript below] I discussed various libertarian with Tom Woods on his show today, Episode 592. From Tom's show notes: Stephan Kinsella joins me to discuss negative/positive rights and obligations, “loser pays,” whether creation makes you an owner, how we can consider spam aggression, and more. Fun! Grok shownotes: [00:00:00 - 00:15:00] In this episode of the Tom Woods Show, host Tom Woods interviews Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian lawyer and theorist, to discuss five common mistakes libertarians make. Kinsella begins by addressing the misuse of terms like "coercion" and "aggression," which libertarians often apply too broadly, diluting their precision in describing violations of property rights. He critiques the tendency to treat all government actions as inherently coercive, emphasizing that fraud or contract breaches also constitute aggression under libertarian principles. The conversation highlights the importance of grounding libertarian arguments in property rights, as seen in Kinsella’s title-transfer theory of contract, and avoiding oversimplified rhetoric that conflates voluntary agreements with coercion. [00:15:01 - 00:30:53] The discussion continues with Kinsella identifying additional pitfalls: misunderstanding the role of the state, overemphasizing utilitarianism, neglecting legal theory, and failing to engage with opposing views. He argues that libertarians should view the state as a monopolistic aggressor but avoid dismissing all governance outright, advocating for decentralized, voluntary systems. Kinsella warns against relying solely on utilitarian arguments, which can undermine principled libertarianism, and stresses the need for robust legal frameworks like his title-transfer theory to address issues like fraud and contract enforcement. The episode concludes with a call for libertarians to refine their arguments by studying philosophy and law, engaging critics thoughtfully, and avoiding dogmatic echo chambers to strengthen the movement’s intellectual rigor. Background materials for topics discussed: Spam: Why Spam is Trespass (Jan. 18, 2010) Kinsella & Tinsley, Causation and Aggression Positive rights and libertarianism: How We Come To Own Ourselves Objectivists on Positive Parental Obligations and Abortion Loser pays unlibertarian: See "Losing Patentee Pays" section of Reducing the Cost of IP Law Creation not a source of ownership: Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value Intellectual Freedom and Learning Versus Patent and Copyright “Locke on IP; Mises, Rothbard, and Rand on Creation, Production, and ‘Rearranging’,” Mises Economics Blog (Sep. 29, 2010) [updated C4SIF version, including Hoppe comments] “The Intellectual Property Quagmire, or, The Perils of Libertarian Creationism,” Austrian Scholars Conference 2008 (March 13, 2008) “Objectivist Law Prof Mossoff on Copyright; or, the Misuse of Labor, Value, and Creation Metaphors,” Mises Economics Blog (April 19, 2011) Rand on IP, Owning "Values", and "Rearrangement Rights" Related/previous talks: KOL118 | Tom Woods Show: Against Fuzzy Thinking KOL 044 | “Correcting some Common Libertarian Misconceptions” (PFS 2011) “Libertarian Controversies” “Correcting some Common Libertarian Misconceptions,” 2011 Annual Meeting, Property and Freedom Society (May 28, 2011) [podcast here] KOL185: Clarifying Libertarian Theory (Liberty.me, July 2014) Grok Detailed Shownotes: Detailed Segment Summary [00:00:00 - 00:07:30] Introduction and Mistake #1: Misusing "Coercion" and "Aggression" Tom Woods introduces Kinsella, noting his expertise in libertarian legal theory and his work on the title-transfer theory of contract. Kinsella identifies the first mistake: libertarians’ overuse of "coercion" and "aggression" to describe any disliked action, which dilutes their meaning. He clarifies that aggression, per libertarianism, involves violating property rights, including through fraud or contract breaches, not just physical force. [00:07:31 - 00:15:00] Mistake #2: Treating All Government Actions as Coercive Kinsella critiques the tendency to label all government actions as coercive, arguing that some, like enforcing valid contracts, align with libertarian principles if done voluntarily. He emphasizes that libertarianism should focus on property rights violations, using his title-transfer theory to explain how contracts are about title transfers, not enforceable promises. Woods and Kinsella discuss how sloppy terminology can weaken libertarian arguments, urging precision in debates. [00:15:01 - 00:22:00] Mistake #3: Misunderstanding the State’s Role Kinsella identifies the third mistake: viewing the state as inherently evil without nuance, which ignores the possibility of voluntary governance in a free society. He advocates for decentralized, market-based systems over monopolistic state control, but cautions

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 205. This is my Austrian AV Club Interview by Redmond Weissenberger, Director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada, back from Aug. 25, 2012. [RIP; rip] We had a long-ranging discussion on the issue of net neutrality, and we touched on other issues as well including various ways the state impinges on Internet freedom, such as in the name of IP (SOPA, ACTA), child pornography, terrorism, online gambling, and so on. For background on some of the issues discussed, see my posts Net Neutrality Developments; Kinsella on This Week in Law discussing IP, Net Neutrality; Against Net Neutrality.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 204. From episode 087 of the Outside the Music Box podcast, "A PODCAST ABOUT PEOPLE, Centered on Music," hosted by James Newcomb [later re-podcast by Newcomb for his Trumpet Dynamics podcast, Ep. 80 Intellectual Property Overview]. In this episode of Outside the Music Box, we discuss one of the most sacred cows in life, that of Intellectual Property (IP). Stephan explains his position that IP creates confusion regarding the whole concept of property in general. He then gives practical guidance on how to survive and even thrive in this brave new world of IP in which we find ourselves.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 203. This is a Libertarianism Q&A I did using the new Facebook Mentions "Live Video" feature (from this Facebook post; Facebook Live Video; Jan. 11, 2016). I fielded a few questions on various topics, e.g. verbal threats as assault, assault and battery, causality, praxeology, etc. Older, audio-only youtube. Background: A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights How We Come To Own Ourselves Causation and Aggression The Limits of Armchair Theorizing: The case of Threats The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression Facebook Live Video below: // < ![CDATA[ (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); // ]]> Libertarian Theory Q&A Posted by Stephan Kinsella on Monday, January 11, 2016

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 202. I discussed the libertarian non-aggression principle with Tom Woods on his show today, Episode 566: Ep. 566 Why Are Some Libertarians Rejecting the Nonaggression Principle? 8th January 2016 It’s become fashionable in libertarian circles to ridicule the nonaggression principle. Stephan Kinsella and I speak in its defense. This one is long overdue. Column Discussed “Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle,” by Matt Zwolinski See also my: What Libertarianism Is Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach (Feb. 3, 2009) The Limits of Armchair Theorizing: The case of Threats, Mises Blog (Jul. 27, 2006) The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression (July 17, 2006)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 201. I was a guest today on the Mid-Life Criss podcast, episode 4, produced by my friend Jack Criss, of BAMSouth. We discussed my IP views, anarchy, and a few related matters. https://soundcloud.com/robert-dillard-689981544/mid-life-criss-show-4

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 200. I was interviewed yesterday by Steve Rose of The Anarchist Standard about a libertarian/anarchist strategy and a variety of other matters. From his description: "Stephan and I discussed his path to anarchism, the changing labels for the liberty movement, artificial intelligence, religion, world government, and prospects for the future of liberty."

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 199. I discussed legislation and law with Tom Woods on his show today, Episode 557: Ep. 557 The State’s Corruption of Private Law, or We Don’t Need No Legislature 17th December 2015 Ever since we learned in school how a bill becomes a law, we’ve absorbed the idea that it’s normal for law to be imposed from the top down. But it’s possible, and indeed the historical norm, for law to emerge in a completely different, more libertarian-friendly way. Join me for a great conversation with Stephan Kinsella! Transcript below. Youtube version: More description from Tom's shownotes: Related Links “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society” (PDF) by Stephan Kinsella Liberty and Law (PDF), by Giovanni Sartori “The State’s Corruption of Private Law,” by Stephan Kinsella “Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter and the Field Codes,” by Stephan Kinsella Related Books Law, Legislation, and Liberty, vol. 1: Rules and Order, by F.A. Hayek Freedom and the Law, by Bruno Leoni Books by the Guest Against Intellectual Property International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide Protecting Foreign Investment Under International Law: Legal Aspects of Political Risk For some more related posts/resources: “Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010) “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995) Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter v. the Field Codes Kinsella & Rome, Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary (Quid Pro Books, 2011) Regret: The Glory of State Law KOL001 | “The (State’s) Corruption of (Private) Law” (PFS 2012) Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty, vol. 1 John Hasnas, The Myth of the Rule of Law (2) David Kelley & Roger Donway, Laissez Parler: Freedom in the Electronic Media (linked here) Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the Law Giovanni Sartori, Liberty and Law (pdf) Shael Herman, The Louisiana Civil Code: A European Legacy for the United States Alan Watson, Roman Law and Comparative Law Idem, The Importance of “Nutshells”, AJCL, 1994 Why Airwaves (Electromagnetic Spectra) Are (Arguably) Property Transcript The State's Corruption of Private Law, or We Don't Need No Legislature Stephan Kinsella, interviewed by Tom Woods The Tom Woods Show, Dec. 17, 2015 Transcript 00:00:00 TOM WOODS: The Tom Woods Show, episode 557. 00:00:03 INTRO: Prepare to set fire to the index card of allowable opinion. Your daily dose of liberty education starts here, the Tom Woods Show. 00:00:13 TOM WOODS: Hey everybody. Welcome to another episode of the show. Stephan Kinsella is back with us again. There are so many episode topics I could cover with Stephan Kinsella, and today we’re talking about law and legislation. Is it possible to think of law other than as something that’s imposed from the top down by a bunch of legislators on society? That’s what we want to talk about because it’s important, has important ramifications, and I thought I haven’t done it yet. Doggone it; it’s episode 557. Let’s do it. 00:00:48 Stephan Kinsella is a libertarian legal theorist. He has pioneered in the study of intellectual property. I’m going to link to all kinds of material about Stephan at tomwoods.com/557. You can find out more about him at stephankinsella.com. Let me remind you because there’s been a little bit of confusion. I am giving away a free autographed book. You can look through my book selection at tomwoods.com/books. I am giving away a free autographed and personalized book to people who buy gift subscriptions to libertyclassroom.com this year, only for gift subscriptions. 00:01:28 It’s like when you go to Chili’s, which I don’t recommend, but if you go to Chili’s and you buy a $25 gift card, they give you a $5 gift card, it’s that kind of principle. So if you buy a gift, you get something for yourself. So I probably won’t be able to get it to you before Christmas, so don’t think of it as a gift to give to your recipient. You’ve already given your recipient a gift. It’s enough giving for one person. Keep the book for yourself. So just get the subscription at libertyclassroom.com and just drop me a line at tomwoods.com. Tell me what book you’d like, give me your address, and I’ll mail that baby right on out to you. All right, let’s talk now to Stephan Kinsella. Stephan, welcome back to the show. 00:02:08 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Thanks Tom, glad to be here. 00:02:09 TOM WOODS: This is a topic I get but I don’t fully get, and I say that as somebody who’s been a libertarian for a long time, and I want you to help us flesh out this topic of law and legislation as two different things that if we say that we don’t like legislation that doesn’t mean we don’t like law. What do these things mean? Can you have law without a centralized lawmaker that hands down authoritative statements that bind everybody in society? Is there another way of thinking about how law comes about? That’

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 198. This is a discussion with Ash Navabi, an economics grad student at George Mason, who messaged me this question: Hi Stephan. I'm having a conceptual problem distinguishing IP and tangible property. In Against IP, you said that an IP right gives the IP owner "invariably transfer partial ownership of tangible property from its natural owner to innovators, inventors, and artists." But doesn't this apply to every property right? If I own a tract of land, why can't we say that if I ban you riding across it with your dirt bike, then I am claiming ownership over your dirt bike? I decided to just discuss this with him for the podcast. We ended up veering into a couple tangential issues like auctions for trade secrets in an IP-free world, and so on. Before we talked, I asked him to read: “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) Other materials mentioned during our discussion: Against Intellectual Property Roderick Long, Owning Ideas Means Owning People and The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights The video is streamed below.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 197. I discussed Rothbardian/libertarian contract theory with Tom Woods on his show today. Update: See also Łukasz Dominiak & Tate Fegley, "Contract Theory, Title Transfer, and Libertarianism," Diametros (10 Sep. 2022; doi: 10.33392/diam.180) Transcript below. Ep. 547 The Central Rothbard Contribution I Overlooked, and Why It Matters Youtube: 3rd December 2015 Stephan Kinsella explains the importance of Rothbard’s theory of contract — a point I myself did not appreciate until this episode — and contrasts it with mainstream theories, which most libertarians think are the same as their own. We need to get these fundamentals right, so listen in and learn with me! Articles Discussed “Toward a Reformulation of the Law of Contracts,” by Williamson M. Evers “A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, Inalienability,” by Stephan Kinsella Book Discussed The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard For some more related posts/resources: A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 [based on paper presented at Law and Economics panel, Austrian Scholars Conference, Auburn, Alabama (April 17, 1999)] Justice and Property Rights: Rothbard on Scarcity, Property, Contracts… KOL020 | “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society: Lecture 3: Applications I: Legal Systems, Contract, Fraud” (Mises Academy, 2011) around Slide 16: slides here The Libertarian View on Fine Print, Shrinkwrap, Clickwrap KOL146 | Interview of Williamson Evers on the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery Transcript The Central Rothbard Contribution I Overlooked, and Why It Matters: The Rothbard-Evers Title-Transfer Theory of Contract Stephan Kinsella, interviewed by Tom Woods The Tom Woods Show, Ep. 547, Dec. 3, 2015 Transcript 00:00:00 TOM WOODS: The Tom Woods Show, episode 547. 00:00:03 INTRO: Prepare to set fire to the index card of allowable opinion. Your daily dose of liberty education starts here, the Tom Woods Show. 00:00:14 TOM WOODS: Hey everybody. Christmas is coming, and chances are you’re going to be doing a lot of online shopping. Well, why not get cash back at virtually all the retailers you’re going to be using anyway? Sign up for Ebates and you’ll get just that. Check it out through tomwoods.com/ebates. 00:00:30 Hey everybody. Welcome to another episode of the Tom Woods Show. We’re joined once again by Stephan Kinsella because today we’re talking about foundational issues related to libertarianism, and I can think of no one better to help us clarify our thinking on questions like this than Stephan. And ordinarily, as I would do in these episodes and as I’ve done in the past with Stephan, I would launch into a biographical discussion of the guest. But instead, I’m going to turn things over to Stephan and say, Stephan, what do you think people should know about you? 00:01:02 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, I was born in a little town in Louisiana. 00:01:06 TOM WOODS: I knew I shouldn’t have done this. 00:01:07 STEPHAN KINSELLA: I’m a libertarian patent attorney in Houston. How about that? 00:01:12 TOM WOODS: Oh, but you’ve done so much more. I want to know about your writings. 00:01:16 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, so I am a practicing attorney, but I’ve written a lot on libertarian legal theory for the Journal of Libertarian Studies, and then I founded sort of a successor journal called Libertarian Papers, which is still ongoing, which I’m the managing editor of. And I’ve written some books, and I’ve written on intellectual property, both the legal side and the libertarian theory side. 00:01:42 TOM WOODS: I am going to be linking to everything that we talk about today in terms of articles that you’ve written and stuff like that. I’ll like to it at tomwoods.com/547. I spent last night actually reading some of your stuff that I hadn’t read before, and then all the way up to the moment I called you today I was reading your stuff. So I am very much in a Kinsella frame of mind right now, and I have to say, I want to get to this later. I was really struck by – I guess I hadn’t read – gosh, I hadn’t – I’ve read so much Rothbard, but it’s – I haven’t read it in the past week, and sometimes I forget what was in it. 00:02:22 And some of the insights are so interesting because they apply to current debates. I was interested to see that Rothbard I guess deals with the question of how do we confront problems in, let’s say – well, let’s just say this. Sometimes we don’t have a – what we might call a clean capitalism. Sometimes property titles are not legitimate because they – when you go back into the mist of time, you might be able to say that so-and-so stole it, and you’re an inheritor of stolen goods. But the difficulty is how can we know that today? We can’t always, and so does that mean that everybody holds his prope

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 196. This is my appearance on the Jason Stapleton Program: Intellectual Property: A Libertarian Debate with Stephan Kinsella.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 195. This is my appearance on the The 21st Century Anarchist Podcast Ep. 038: IP with Stephan Kinsella, with host Hermann Morris: "An introduction to intellectual property law and how it relates to libertarianism." Youtube:

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 194. This is an impromptu discussion with my wonderful parents, Norman and Patsy Kinsella, who live in Prairieville, Louisiana. We did this a couple days ago, Oct. 1, on my 50th birthday. As sometimes happens in October in Louisiana, the weather starts getting nice around that time, and so we were sitting outside on the porch and when my dad got out his ballot to vote by mail in an upcoming election, I whipped out my iPhone and did a quick interview with them about politics that I thought might be of interest to some of my followers. (N.b.: For those interested in more details on related matters, see How I Became A Libertarian (2002), later published as “Being a Libertarian” in I Chose Liberty: Autobiographies of Contemporary Libertarians.)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 193. This is my appearance on Albert Lu’s “The Economy” podcast. This is part 3 of 3. We discussed property rights, bitcoin ownership, intellectual property, and related matters. See also: KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender Episode video below: Full video of all three parts below.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 192. This is my appearance on Albert Lu’s “The Economy” podcast, Episode 2015-9-23. This is part 2 of 3. From Albert Lu's description: Your host Albert continues the discussion with patent attorney Stephan Kinsella. In the second of a three-part interview, they discuss the concept of “ownership”. Topics Covered The entire world is made of hardware and owned by someone Fiat money is similar to Bitcoin How property rights arise de facto vs. de jure ownership What is a “good”? Part 1 is here: KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3). Part 3 follows in the next episode. Episode video below: Full video of all 3 parts here: