Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 134. [Update: Transcript is here, and appended below.] This is my appearance as a Guest panelist on This Week in Law, Episode 267 (July 18, 2014). Brief description: “Are patent trolls losing ground? Dish Anywhere in the Aereo aftermath, FCC gets 1 million comments on U.S. net neutrality debate and more!" Once again, the hosts and the other guest were congenial to my radical anti-IP views, and the other guest, law professor Harry Surden, basically acknowledged that there is no clear empirical evidence in favor of the patent system. (BTW the title of the show stemmed from my use of the fancy SAT word eleemosynary—it's used in Louisiana law on occasion, which is how I know, but it is obscure, but a fun word, so I had to drop it in the conversation... Some of my previous posts related to some of the topics discussed: Net Neutrality Developments Against Net Neutrality A Libertarian Take on Net Neutrality Costs of the Patent System Revisited Yet Another Study Finds Patents Do Not Encourage Innovation Patent trolls as mafioso (and that’s a compliment) My previous two appearances on TWiL were: KOL104 | This Week in Law 97: God Creates. We Patent. IP, Net Neutrality, etc (2011) and KOL103 | This Week in Law 133: Beyonce, Bad Laws, and Breastaurants (2011). Transcript THIS WEEK IN LAW 267 (TRANSCRIPT) Aug 11th 2014 This Week in Law Episode 267 - Jul 18 2014 Google, Dropbox, Canon and other c… Denise Howell: Next up on This Week in Law, Stefan Kinsella and Harry Surden join Evan Brown and me. We’ll talk about the FCC getting the soppa treatment, piloting a Nautilus through SCOTUS’ patent wonderland. We’re going to have some other strange boats, too. And talk about the law’s role regarding kids’ cruelty on social media. Much more too on This Week in Law. Netcasts You Love, From People You Trust. This is TWiT! (TWiT logo) Bandwidth for This Week in Law is provided by CacheFly at CacheFly.com (CacheFly logo) Advertisement: This is TWiL, This Week in Law, with Denise Howell and Evan Brown, Episode 267 recorded July 18, 2014 Eleemosynary, My Dear Watson Denise: (bagandbaggage.com - @dhowell) Hi folks, I’m Denise Howell. And you’re joining us for This Week in Law, thank you so much for joining us. We are thrilled to have you and we hope you will be thrilled to be here. We have an awesome panel for you today. We haven’t done too much on the Supreme Court’s recent patent decisions and we’re definitely going to get to that today, plus a whole bunch of other great stuff at the intersection of law and technology. And to help us understand it all, we’ve got Stephan Kinsella joining us once again here on the show. Hello Stephan. Stephan Kinsella: (stephankinsella.com - @nskinsella) Hello. Denise glad to be here. Denise: Great to have you back. What’s going on with you these days? Stephan: Well, trying to stay out of the Houston see in the summer, but having a good summer and following all these patent cases and IP developments. It’s interesting to watch, but so far everything is going very well. The good thing about being on your show, I save time I listen to it anyway, so I can save the podcast for a walk. Denise: That’s wonderful; great, we could save you some time. And make room for somebody else in your podcast lineup. Also joining us a return visitor to TWiL is Harry Surden from University of Colorado law school at Boulder. Harry Surden: (harrysurden.com - @HarrySurden) Hey, Denise. How are you? Denise: I’m doing well, thank you so much for joining us. Great to have you back. Harry: It’s really great to be back. Denise: So, tell us about Boulder in the summertime; make us all jealous. Harry: Boulder in the summer is outstanding. I mean, I can’t say enough about it. There’s millions of hikes just within the city’s borders and it’s beautiful. This has been a particularly mild summer. And it’s sunny almost every day and it’s quite lovely, I must say. Denise: (laughter) I knew that was going to be the case. Just, you know, hoping for. Maybe random thunderstorm shaking things up for you but. Actually, no, we wish you a wonderfully beautiful summer. And also enjoy the lovely summer weather in Chicago, Illinois is Evan Brown. Hello Evan. Evan Brown: (infolawgroup.com -@internetcases). Hi, Denise. Yes, I am thrilled to be here and as nice as it would be to be in Boulder, I guess the second best place is to be sitting in front of a computer somewhere else on TWiL. Talking with the three of you. This ought to be a lot of fun, so it’s great to be here. Denise: The weather’s always good on TWiL. Evan: That’s right, it’s always sunny here. Denise: Good climate control. All right, well, let’s check out the patent on, the patent climate recently in the wake of a couple important Supreme Court decisions. And some other good patent news. So let’s go there first. (Advertisement: music playing, black background; white wording: it’s patent time) Denise: Let’s head into wonderland via Nautilus if we

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 133. I appeared on Ernie Hancock's show for all 3 hours of the July 9, 2014 episode to discuss intellectual property and related issues in detail. We discussed the constitutionality of IP, cryptocurrency/bitcoin, and related matters. This was a followup to the June 18 episode which featured Reed Jessen who was speaking about a way to fight patent trolls, which I called into. My previous appearances on Ernie's show: KOL089 | Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock radio: Intellectual Property, L. Neil Smith and KOL060 | Guest on Ernest Hancock’s Declare Your Independence radio show: intellectual property and libertarianism (2010).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 132. Michael Shanklin passed on to me a variety of questions on libertarian theory and applications for his Voluntary Virtues network. I'll be a regular guest monthly. Relevant links: Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 131. Jeff Tucker and I discuss the recent announcement by Tesla that it will cease enforcing its patents. Relevant links: All Our Patent Are Belong To You, By Elon Musk, CEO, Tesla Tucker, Tesla Shock: A Company Favors Competition Kinsella, The Patent Defense League and Defensive Patent Pooling

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 130. From the Bad Quaker podcast with host Ben Stone, Jeff Tucker and I discuss a variety of libertarian issues, including abortion and the like. https://youtu.be/QffkDMlH2iA Update: Here is the (lightly edited) text of the email I sent Tucker and Stone a few hours before the podcast, that was alluded to at the end: There is something I've been chewing over in my mind lately that I've been thinking about discussing or putting on a podcast, and I'll briefly mention below, in case you two think this is worth talking about. It concerns the interrelationship between concepts of aggression, self-ownership, and homesteading of external resources. Basically libertarians sometimes treat aggression as a primary, and then struggle with including trespass to property as a case of it, ... so then some of them finally admit that aggression depends on property rights-you need to know who owns an apple before you can tell if someone's forceful taking of it (or keeping of it) is "aggression or not." But then you get them turn around and apply property-ownership principles that apply to the apple--like contracts and homesteading--back to one's body, after all one is a "self-owner" and therefore, "just like" the way you own the apple was by homesteading and you can have a contract to sell it, you also gain ownership of your body by homesteding and you can also sell it (voluntary slavery). I think Walter Block employs a version of this reasoning, and I've heard others employ variations of it. (A similar fallacy is the twin pair of related ideas: if you own something, that implies that you can sell it; and if you sell something, that implies you must own it first. The former idea, which is based on a flawed idea about the origin and nature of property rights and contract theory, is used to justify voluntary slavery; the second, which is based on a flawed understanding of contract theory, is used to justify intellectual property.) I've thought about this of the years, and kept toying in my mind with Rand's (to my mind original) expression of the non-initiation of force principle. Similar to the way I toyed with self-ownership and finally figured it out due to Hoppe's insights on this very topic, combined with his singular focus on economic scarcity as the touchstone of property (something Rothbard didn't do, whcih is why he went astray on IP and a couple other fairly minor issues having to do with contract theory). Rand didn't do it either, which is why she also was a bit fuzzy, beyond her NAP. What Hoppe made me realize (as I discuss in How We Come To Own Ourselves) is that there is a difference in the basis of property rights in one's body, and in external resources. It is a difference that is already partially implicit in the elementary formulation of the NAP itself, as Rand and Rothbard formulated it. The difference is this. it is not homesteading that is primary. It is the objective link--some objective, demonstrable link between the owner/claimant and the resource in dispute (an "intersubjectively ascertainable" link, as Hoppe might say in Kantian terms). The purpose of property rights is to allocate or determine an owner of a disputed resource, in the case of a dispute, so as to avoid conflict and to permit resources in general to be used productively. Thus the allocation rule has to be based on some objective criteria, not on something arbitrary, particularizable, or mere verbal decree--since the latter types of basis for deciding who owns something does not fulfill the function of property rights--of avoiding conflict, since if the rule is inherently arbitrary or unfair or particularizable then we cannot expect the people on the receiving end to respect it, so there will just be confict once more (might makes right; war of all against all). And any number of people could simultaneoulsy verbally claim the resource, so that could never be a good way. It has to be an objective criterion that everyone can see and recognize as objectively connecting one of the claimants to the resource in a way that gives him a superior claim to it. That is the objective link test. In the case of one's body, the objective link just is one's direct control over one's body--one's special link to, connection to, one's intimate relationship to one's body. Whether you are atheist or theist, you can see this link exists: one either 'is" one's body, or "inhabits" one's body, or is a soul that "drives" one's body, whatever, in any case, one's "person" is intimately bound up with a particular body. So, in a dispute between A and B over who owns A's body, the answer is: A. Not B. The answer B would be slavery, other-ownership, and there is no way to justify a generalized system of other-ownership as this is particularizabl

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 129. This is a lesson/lecture I presented to a group of "Upper Elementary" Montessori students today at my son's school, The Post Oak School (Upper El includes 4th, 5th, and 6th grade students, and there were also a few third graders visiting from lower el, who are moving up next year). The students (25 or 30 or so) sat in a group at my feet, and were polite and interested the whole time. They asked many very intelligent and fun questions. I tried not to get too complicated, but did speak in fairly frank and sophisticated terms, tried not to talk down to them or dumb the talk down too much, and almost all of them hung in there till the end. The original plan was to speak for 40 or so minutes then take questions for another 15 or so, but we ended up going about an hour and 7 minutes, and then during lunch I had throng of students throwing more questions at me for another half hour. What amazing students; what an amazing school and educational approach. (This is one reason I love the Montessori approach; see my Montessori, Peace, and Libertarianism.) I included here only the main talk and Q&A, not the lunch banter. (An article prepared by 6th graders in the class, describing the lecture, appears in the first couple of pages of this issue of the class newsletter.) I think this talk is suitable for kids from ages 9 to 16 or so. The notes I used and handed out are reproduced below, with a few links added. For more background on these topics, see the links below, as well as my short article Legislation and Law in a Free Society, adapted from my 1995 JLS article Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society, which contains detailed references; and my more detailed speech The (State’s) Corruption of (Private) Law, from the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Update: Some people have asked me for further recommended readings, in legal history, etc. Unfortunately my library is packed away in boxes now for a renovation so I cannot peruse my legal theory/history titles, but from memory and some other notes I have, here are some suggested readings related to the talk. Some of my own personal favorites first: 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 See also my post Book Recommendations: Private, International, and Common Law; Legal Theory, and also: The Greatest Libertarian Books and Other Top Ten Lists of Libertarian Books. For some others: A History of American Law, 2d. ed., 1985, Lawrence M. Friedman Trakman, Leon E., The Law Merchant: The Evolution of Commercial Law Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law Buckland, W.W. & Arnold D. McNair, Roman Law and Common Law: A Comparison in Outline The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study, by Karl N. Llewellyn Jhering, Dr. Rudolph von, The Struggle for Law Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. “The latter is one of the greatest books (not just of law, but of any subject) I’ve ever read; and the former is full of interesting argument and facts. Berman also has a sequel, published a few years ago, that carries the story through the Protestant Reformation, but I haven’t read it yet. I venture to recommend it, sight unseen, on the strength of my admiration of its predecessor.” (Thanks to Robert Higgs.) Alan Watson, The Making of the Civil Law Rosalyn Higgins: Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It Giovanni Sartori, Democratic Theory Merryman, John Henry, The Civil Law Tradition: An Introduction to the Legal Systems of Western Europe and Latin America, 2d. ed. 1985 (book reviews by: Mary Ann Glendon, Robert O. Homes, Jr., Homer, A. M. Honore, and A.T. von Mehren; also Robert A. Pascal (diff book)) See also the sources listed in Tom W. Bell’s discussion of “polycentric law” Update 2: I have no doubt I mangled a few historical and other details in my somewhat extemporaneous exposition. For example, here is one constructive criticism I received: I am a satisfied subscriber to your KOL podcast, which I enjoy very much. I just listened to episode 129 wherein you address a group of elementary-school students. It really made me realize how intellectually void was the time I served in my local government school. Anyway, around the 46 minute mark you got your definitions of robbery and burglary reversed. Hopefully the kids weren't taking notes. Yep. He's right. I got robbery and burglary backwards. Mea culpa! The Story of Law: What Is Law, and Where Does it Come From? Stephan Kinsella Post Oak School, []’s Upper El class May 22, 2014 Discussion Notes/Outline DIFFERENT TYPES OF “LAW” Descr

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 128. From Jan. 2012, an interview by Peter Mac from The Peter Mac Show about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 127. From December 2011, an interview by Stefan Molyneux for his Freedomain Radio program about the evil Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. We discussed the First Amendment violations of and other problems with SOPA. Moly's original video was taken down when he was deplatformed. Youtube transcript and Grok shownotes below. https://youtu.be/lpUo93YnbNA Grok shownotes: Episode Overview: SOPA, Piracy, and Internet Freedom In this episode of Freedomain Radio, host Stefan Molyneux interviews intellectual property critic Stephan Kinsella about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and broader issues surrounding copyright enforcement. Kinsella provides an overview of SOPA's status, noting its delay until January amid widespread opposition, and criticizes it as a tool for big media industries like the RIAA and MPAA to ratchet up penalties for infringement. He argues that copyright is a government-granted monopoly incompatible with free speech and human liberty, potentially even unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The discussion highlights the tension between copyright's censorship effects and the internet's role as a "copying machine," drawing parallels to the drug war's futile escalation. Historical Context and DMCA Critique Kinsella traces copyright's evolution, referencing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) from the 1990s, which included safe harbor provisions that inadvertently allowed the internet to flourish by shielding ISPs and platforms from liability for user actions. However, he points out abuses like takedown notices, exemplified by Uri Geller's attempts to remove embarrassing footage despite lacking rights. Molyneux concurs, likening it to suing a road maker for a bad driver, and notes how risk-averse platforms side with copyright holders, stifling fair use. The conversation positions SOPA as an unnecessary layer atop the DMCA, potentially breaking DNS protocols and enabling ex parte shutdowns without due process. Impacts of SOPA and Technological Workarounds The hosts discuss SOPA's potential to create "permanent pirate communities" by driving hardcore users offshore with encryption and tools like DeSOPA or MafiaFire add-ons, while inconveniencing law-abiding citizens and chilling speech. Kinsella warns of broader state control, using IP enforcement as a pretext alongside child pornography or terrorism fears, and predicts SOPA's unconstitutionality due to prior restraint issues. Molyneux adds that it could exacerbate civil unrest by suppressing dissent during economic turmoil, and both criticize the "dinosaur mentality" of media industries clinging to outdated models, ignoring studies showing pirates often buy more content. Alternative Business Models and Creative Incentives Exploring life without strict copyright, the duo highlights successful freemium approaches, such as comedian Louis CK earning $1 million in days from a $5 DRM-free video release, or Molyneux's own experience freeing his books and thriving on donations. They advocate tipping-based systems for artists, akin to waiters, and suggest authors like J.K. Rowling could profit via pledges or endorsements. Molyneux emphasizes how low barriers to digital donations enable voluntary support, countering claims of market failure, while Kinsella mocks government-funded innovation panels as bureaucratic absurdities that could cost trillions. Government-Media Alignment and Economic Ramifications The episode delves into motivations behind SOPA, with Kinsella attributing it to media bribery of politicians and state desires for internet control, echoing historical monopolies like the Statute of Anne. Molyneux speculates on an alignment where Hollywood's reliance on government protection ensures pro-state narratives in media, avoiding anti-government films amid social unrest. They warn of job losses as IT firms flee U.S. jurisdiction and investment chills, framing SOPA as rent-seeking with visible gains for media but invisible societal costs. Molyneux's Alignment with Kinsella's Anti-IP Views Throughout the discussion, Molyneux shows strong alignment with Kinsella's anti-IP stance, though he stops short of explicitly calling for the abolition of patent and copyright laws. He actively supports Kinsella's critiques by sharing personal anecdotes, such as releasing his books for free and advocating tipping models, implying copyright hinders better systems. Molyneux counters pro-IP arguments—like diminished creativity without controls—by citing billions of unpaid blogs as evidence against underproduction, and he ridicules piracy loss calculations as "insane." His libertarian framing of SOPA as government overreach and enthusiasm for freemium economies indicate he views IP as unnecessary and harmful, consistent with abolitionist views, but without a direct statement like "abolish copyright.&quo

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 126. This is my Mises University 2011 lecture, Intellectual Property and Economic Development (July 27, 2011), perhaps one of my better talks on IP and liberty. The original PowerPoint slides are here. Streanming audio, video, and a googledocs version of the slides are below. An unedited, raw transcript is also appended below (it may be cleaned up in due course). Transcript Mark Thornton: Our first speaker this morning is Stephan Kinsella. He is a patent attorney from Houston and the editor of Libertarian Papers. His lecture this morning is going to be on Intellectual Property and Economic Development. Stephan… Stephan Kinsella: Thanks Mark. I’m very glad to be here at the Mises University. I was here a couple of years ago. It is always a great thing. So let me get started. I have a lot to cover so I will try to go as quickly as possible without going too fast. Most of you should already be familiar with the basic idea of praxeology. There is a reason I’m going to start with this and it will become clearer in a moment. Praxeology is the formal study of the implications of the fact that men use means to attain various ends. What we do is we start with incontestable or a priori propositions that are related to human action and its categories. Primarily, for the purposes of our lecture today, humans employ scarce means to pursue ends. There are, of course, other categories applied in action such as causality, choice, cost, profit, and loss. Now another aspect of economic analysis is contingent facts. After we recognize and establish what the a priori categories of action are, we explicitly introduce certain contingent facts to make the analysis interesting. As Hoppe explains: “Mises explains the entire body of economic theory as implied in and deducible from a conceptual understanding of the meaning of action plus a few general, explicitly introduced assumptions about the empirical reality in which action has taken place”. So, in other words, we make some assumptions to make the analysis more interesting and more relevant to our lives. Mises, of course, talks explicitly about this. The branches of praxeology would include both catalytics and Crusoe economics for example. So, for example, we would assume private property rights and a market to make the analysis interesting. We would assume there is a money society, for example, instead of just barter. Economic analysis presupposes some legal system as well and a property rights framework. In a market economy, this include at least private property and scarce resources and related rights like contract and negotiable instruments, promissory notes and debts, service contracts, and so on. When you see economists reason about a banking system or an economy, they are taking for granted, or they are assuming, that there is in place a certain legal system, a certain respect for private property rights. These are not a priori assumptions. These are explicitly introduced background assumptions about the nature of legal rights that are possessed by actors. Economics is just a branch of praxeology, according to Mises. It is the most developed branch so far. What other branches of praxeology could there be? Of course, economics can include Crusoe economics and catallactics. Mieses said that other branches could include the study of war, game theory, and things like this. Roderick Long has a comment that the way we sometimes use economics is so broad that it is basically the same thing as praxeology so it is not clear what types of fields would not be included in economics that would be praxeology. In any case, you will see Austrians explicity use praxeological analysis and economic analysis to analyze the effects of aggression as well as private property and the free market. For example, Mises analyzes the Hamburg Market economy and State Interventionism. Rothbard analyzes the effects of violent intervention in the market. So, in this case, the explicitly introduced assumptions is the existence of a state and certain interventions in the economy that contravene some type of baseline private property rights that we would analyze in a free market economy situation. Now I bring this up because we want to talk about intellectual property. We need to understand what we mean by the term and how it plays a role in economic analysis. Over the last couple of centuries, in the Western legal systems, the Western legal systems have protected, along with property rights and scarce resources, so called intellectual property or IP rights. It is called industrial property in Europe, primarily. As a general matter, you can think of IP, in the legal sense, as legal rights related to creation of the intellect or the mind. That is why the word intellect is used. It traditionally includes four main types: Patent Copyright Patents are basically a monopoly privilege granted by the state covering the exclusive right to make or use or sell an invention. Think of

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 125. Richard Heathen of Liberty Machine News interviews Stephan Kinsella about the evils intellectual property, why it it illegitimate and how it empowers crony capitalism through heavy handed state enforcement. (recorded April 10, 2014; uploaded May 12, 2014)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 124. This is my appearance from last Saturday (April 26, 2014) on the Patriot's Lament radio show in Alaska, with host Joshua Bennett. We discussed a variety of topics, including anarchy versus the state versus government, how anarchist societies would handle threats from states, the unique aspects of libertarianism and what sets it apart from all other political philosophies, and related topics. (Youtube)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 123. Daniel Rothschild arranged for and moderated a debate between me and Objectivist/classical liberal (or whatever he is) Jan Helfeld. I lost my temper with the guy because I refused to let him do what I've seen him do to others—take the moral highground (which, as someone defending the state against me, a real libertarian, I was not going to let him do) and use his boring/bludgeoning "socratic" debate technique to try to boringly wear people down. I refused to give in to either, which resulted in the funny mess that you can see here. Of course, Helfeld never seriously tried to justify aggression or the state. He read from a prepared script, like a parakeet. And one of his arguments hinted at the idea that the state does commit aggression but that it is worth it because it prevents more serious aggression that would occur under a condition of anarchy; though he never made this argument explicitly. The other one suggested by him is that if Stephan Kinsella might in some conceivable emergency commit trespass to steal food, that means that aggression is not objectionable as a general matter, i.e. the state is justified in stealing $3trillion a year from US taxpayers because a starving Stephan Kinsella could conceivably be willing to break into a cabin in the woods to steal a can of beans. Again, Helfeld does not want to make this argument so explicitly because then it would rightly subject him to ridicule. My opening statement was originally lost due to technical issues and deleted by Helfeld, but James Cox somehow saved it and spliced it in with take two. The combined material is included here. Update: Made this edit of a debate @NSKinsella had idk how many years ago. Anyway, hope you enjoy! https://t.co/XB3RqbcUn7 — The Liberty Tyrant (@Liberty_Tyrant) November 20, 2025 https://youtu.be/3pehqp7Icm4?si=vrd9RcfKOentUq6C GROK SHOWNOTES: Two-Paragraph Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL123), recorded on April 27, 2014, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella debates Objectivist/classical liberal Jan Helfeld on the merits of anarcho-capitalism versus limited government, moderated by Daniel Rothschild (0:00:00-10:00). Kinsella argues that the state inherently commits aggression through taxation and monopolistic services, violating the non-aggression principle (NAP), and advocates for a stateless society with private property and voluntary institutions, challenging Helfeld to justify state coercion (10:01-30:00). Helfeld employs a Socratic questioning style, repeatedly asking Kinsella about extreme scenarios, such as whether taking a drink under duress violates the NAP, to argue that the NAP is not absolute, suggesting that limited government is justified to prevent anarchy’s perceived chaos (30:01-50:00). The debate becomes heated, with Kinsella refusing to concede Helfeld’s moral high ground, as noted in his commentary on stephankinsella.com, leading to a confrontational tone. Kinsella maintains that Helfeld fails to justify state aggression, emphasizing that limited government still relies on coercive taxation and monopolies, incompatible with libertarian principles (50:01-1:10:00). Helfeld insists that anarchy would lead to gang warfare and poverty, justifying a minimal state to protect life, liberty, and property, but struggles to directly address Kinsella’s demand for a principled defense of coercion, as Kinsella critiques in his post-debate analysis (1:10:01-1:29:59). The Q&A reveals Helfeld’s reliance on hypothetical exigencies, which Kinsella dismisses as irrelevant to the NAP’s consistency, while Helfeld accuses Kinsella of avoiding practical concerns. Kinsella concludes by urging listeners to reject the state’s legitimacy, directing them to c4sif.org for resources, delivering a robust defense of anarcho-capitalism. This episode, though contentious, is a compelling exploration of anarchy versus minarchy, with Kinsella’s commentary highlighting Helfeld’s evasive tactics. Youtube Transcript and Grok Detailed Summary below. https://youtu.be/DFYrrVSI4zI For those who think I was too rude or disrespectful to Helfeld, I submit this video showing his interaction with Jeff Tucker: Update: See KOL038 | Debate with Robert Wenzel on Intellectual Property; Robert Wenzel, "Kinsela [sic] Constantly Insulted Me, Interrupted Me and Broke His Agreement.", Economic Policy Journal [sic] (May 5, 2014) (Wenzel too stupid or sloppy to spell my last name right); and idem, "Is This What Kinsella Was Afraid Of?", Economic Policy Journal [sic] (May 6, 2014). GROK DETAILED SUMMARY Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Blocks The summary is based on the transcript provided at stephankinsella.com for KOL123, a 1-hour-29-minute debate between Stephan Kinsella and Jan Helfeld on anarchy versus limited government, recorded on April 27, 2014, moderated by Daniel Rothschild. The time blocks ar

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 122. I appeared recently on the Canadian libertarian podcast Ed and Ethan: The Voice of Liberty in Canada (April 26, 2014) (I was a guest in 2012 and 2013 as well). We discussed the Aereo copyright case, IP in the Eastern District of Texas (see reporting by Joe Mullen), net neutrality, and other matters. This is my segment only; for the full show, go to Ed and Ethan’s show page for Episode 107. For background: see Dropbox clarifies its policy on reviewing shared files for DMCA issues, and links above.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 121. I was interviewed by Redmond Weissenberger, of Mises Canada, for his Better Red than Dead podcast (iTunes). We discussed a variety of topics, including: store refuses to put boy's name on an Easter egg because of a copyright concern because he shares a name with a famous soccer player, positive versus negative rights, Alexis de Tocqueville on servitudes and liberty, and intellectual property (IP) as negative servitudes; Ayn Rand's confusion on property rights and IP; property as the least bad option; the impossibility of a post-scarcity world; the dispute over "privilege checking" and attempts to speak the language of progressives; Hoppe on immigration and monarchy. More information on some of the topics discussed can be found in the following articles and blog posts: Boy named after Wayne Rooney not allowed personalised Easter egg due to 'copyright law' DropBox Keeps Users From Sharing Copyrighted Material The Girl With the Xeroxed Tattoo Maori Angry About Mike Tyson’s Tattoo Artist Claiming To Own Maori-Inspired Design Guy Who Did Mike Tyson’s Tattoo Sues Warner Bros. For Copyright Infringement The IP War on 3D Printing Begins Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes "Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd." Alexis de Tocqueville Private Property, the Least Bad Option, by Joseph S. Diedrich Does Intellectual Property Defy Human Nature?, Diedrich Joseph Diedrich: Intellectual Property Cannot Be Property Locke on IP; Mises, Rothbard, and Rand on Creation, Production, and ‘Rearranging’ Ayn Rand on eminent domain The Problem with “Coercion” The Three Languages of Politics featuring Arnold Kling, Aaron Ross Powell, and Trevor Burrus On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse Thomas Knapp re Hoppe and Carson Hoppe: Marx was “Essentially Correct” Hoppe is Not a Monarchist "Abolishing forced integration requires the de-democratization of society and ultimately the abolition of democracy. More specifically, the power to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and reassigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations." Hoppe, Democracy, p. 148 Kinsella, A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 120. A computer science student at UT Austin, Adam Camac, asked me to do an interview with him on the referenced topic for purposes of one of his computer science classes. It was an interesting discussion. Youtube of the video version is below.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 119. This is Part 1 of a fairly in-depth discussion I had with Harrison Fischberg (who was on a previous podcast in episode 114) covering various libertarian issues, such as property, the state, strategy and tactics and personal style versus substance, the standard versus Austrian view of homo economicus, Alan Moore versus Alfred Cuzon's views on anarchy, IP, the importance of technology and the Internet, and so on. Youtube of the full video version below.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 118. I was a guest on the Tom Woods show on March 28, 2014, Episode 127—our discussion includes an overview of libertarian ideas and an attempt to clear up common confusions. For more along the same lines, see my Mises Academy course on "Libertarian Controversies" and “Correcting some Common Libertarian Misconceptions,” 2011 Annual Meeting, Property and Freedom Society (May 28, 2011) [podcast here]; also On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 117. This is the audio for episode 004 of Liberty Talk, an occasional Google hangout-based podcast with Jeffrey Tucker and me (Google Plus page; Youtube Channel).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 116. This is my recent appearance on Michael Shanklin’s Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast with Michael Shanklin (my segment starts about around 1:11:23 of the video below). We discussed a variety of topics fraud and contract theory, and so on. Apparently Christopher Cantwell was on before I joined, but as we had had some words previously, he ducked out before I joined and then rejoined after I came on. It seemed a bit like an ambush to me, but I tried to be patient and explain things to him he was confused about, regarding fraud, his facebook page being taken down due to a complaint, contract and property theory, and so on. Some background material for these topics can be found at: A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability; Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach; What Libertarianism Is; The Libertarian Approach to Negligence, Tort, and Strict Liability: Wergeld and Partial Wergeld; Rand on IP, Owning “Values”, and “Rearrangement Rights”; Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value; “Aggression” versus “Harm” in Libertarianism.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 115. I was interviewed back in May 2012 by Redmond Weissenberger, [RIP] Director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada. We had a long-ranging discussion of the issue of corporations and limited liability, and we touched on other issues as well including causation and responsibility and the praxeological structure of human action; intellectual property; gay marriage and language; human rights as property rights, and free speech; corporate size and international trade in a free society, vs. left-libertarian claims to the contrary; nuclear power, energy, and environmentalists; eminent domain and the Keystone pipeline; Peter Klein and Murray Rothbard on the calculation problem and the upper limit to the firm; state monopolies versus the market; and practical and moral aspects of tax evasion and tax avoidance. For background on some of the issues discussed, see my post Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation; also Causation and Aggression and California Gay Marriage Law Overturned: What Should Libertarians Think?; Peter Klein’s chapter “Economic Calculation and the Limits of Organization,” in The Capitalist and the Entrepreneur: Essays on Organizations and Markets; The Effects of Patent and Copyright on Hollywood Movies; Leveraging IP. For some more recent discussions of the corporation issue, see these podcasts: KOL100 | The Role of the Corporation and Limited Liability In a Free Society (PFS 2013) and KOL 026 | FreeDomain Radio with Stefan Molyneux discussing Corporations and Limited Liability.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 114. Stef and I talk about libertarian ethics, UPB, self-ownership, argumentation ethics, careers, schooling, and related matters—back from November 2013.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 113. Audio version (narrated by Carlos Morales) of my article “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide,” Mises Daily (May 27, 2011).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 112. Update: see KOL419 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Corey Deangelis: School Choice From the vault. This is from 1989, an interview by my good friend Jack Criss, then host of a libertarian AM radio talk show on WJNT in Jackson, Mississippi (now the editor of BAMSouth). Jack interviewed lots of libertarian luminaries on that show, including Murray Rothbard and many others. At the time of this podcast I was an LSU law student and was talking in favor of educational vouchers—something I completely disagree with now, by the way. But I had not yet at the time reached the full flower of my current Austro-libertarian-anarchist radicalism. To my ear, too, I think I had a thicker Louisiana accent back then. Good times. For criticism of voucher: KOL419 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Corey Deangelis: School Choice Lew Rockwell, Education and the Election William Anderson, The Trouble with Vouchers Jacob Hornberger, "School Vouchers Are Anti-Libertarian," Hornberger's Blog (Future of Freedom Foundation) (July 5, 2022) ———, "More on Anti-Libertarian School Vouchers," Hornberger's Blog (Future of Freedom Foundation) (July 6, 2022) Bob Murphy Show ep 105: Corey DeAngelis Makes the Case for School Choice Jacob Hornberger Makes the Case AGAINST School Vouchers (with Bob Murphy -- Bob Murphy show ep. 248) Tom Woods Show: Ep. 2325 Corey DeAngelis and Connor Boyack: The State's Schools Are Beyond Repair Tom Woods Show: Ep. 2211 Corey DeAngelis on the School Choice Movement Kinsella, "Negates freedom of choice," Letter to the Editor, The Morning Advocate (Dec. 21, 1988), and related correspondence related to the voucher system and school choice, 1988–89 (Note: Written in a more Randian "Objectivist" phase, and before I came to oppose voucher systems.) Related: Rose City Catholics Fight for LGBTQ Rights—and Start a War With Portland’s Archbishop (July 5, 2023) Update: Soho Forum Debate: resolved: "Today’s school-choice movement in the U.S. is worthy of support by libertarians…" (taking the negative), vs. Corey DeAngelis, New York City (Aug. 21, 2023) (tickets) https://youtu.be/2Dbf0DTBwV8

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 111. This was my appearance on Daniel Rothschild’s youtube channel on Jan. 20, 2014; we discussed a variety of topics, getting really into the nitty-gritty of a lot of aspects of libertarian legal theory. For some background on some issues discussed, see: Trademark versus Copyright and Patent, or: Is All IP Evil? The Libertarian Approach to Negligence, Tort, and Strict Liability: Wergeld and Partial Wergeld Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach Previous podcast with Daniel: KOL095 | Interview with Daniel Rothschild on Children’s Rights, Aggression, Contract Theory, Self-Ownership, Voluntary Slavery, and More. See also: KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 110. I appeared recently on the Canadian libertarian podcast Ed and Ethan: The Voice of Liberty in Canada (Dec. 29, 2013) (I was a guest last year as well). We discussed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and other matters. This is my segment only; for the full show, go to Ed and Ethan's show page for Episode 90.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 109. This is the audio for episode 005 of Liberty Talk, a weekly-ish Google hangout-based podcast with Jeffrey Tucker and me (Google Plus page; Youtube Channel). Though it's been a month since our last one. Hey, it happens. Today: we discuss Adam Kokesh and his recent brush with the "law" (see FDR2561), Liberty.me, 3D Printing, libertarian activism, nonscarce goods, intellectual property, The Mises Seminar Australia, trade secrets, and more. Next week: we discuss Richard Posner, Richard Epstein, and the Chicago school, and their argument for IP.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 108. This was my (remotely delivered) presentation, “Why Intellectual Property is not Genuine Property,” at the 3rd Adam Smith Forum, Moscow, Russia (Nov. 12, 2011). As I noted in a previous post, this event was held Nov. 12, 2011 in Moscow. It was organized by the Center for the Philosophy of Freedom, the Libertarian Party of Russia, and others. The Chairman of the ASF Steering Committee was economist Pavel Usanov, head of the Hayek Institute for Economy and Law, and Andrey Shal'nev, head of the federal committee of the Libertarian Party of Russia, was its co-chairman. I was invited to speak but could not attend in person, so my 47-minute speech "Why Intellectual Property is not Genuine Property" was presented remotely, with Russian subtitles. It is below, along with the original version and the English transcript plus the Russian translation, which was prepared by Maxim Tulenin, head of the Moscow branch of the Libertarian Party of Russia. Pictures from the event are here. The program with the list of speakers and topics is here (English translation). Tulenin told me after the event: I'm head of the Moscow branch of the Libertarian Party of Russia and I did the translation of your very consistent and convincing video lecture into Russian. Let me thank you, on behalf of the steering committee, Andrey Shal'nev and the participants for your contribution to the Forum, it was a great success with the audience, especially with the younger generation. I also tip my hat to you for the analytic case you've made against "intellectual property" because it has provided me with a pattern of argumentation suitable for my own Internet debates. One of the participants in the Forum provided a brief overview of my talk (rough English translation). The Forum's promo video excerpt, with Russian subtitles, is below, followed by the subtitled version presented at the Forum; the original version of my speech (without subtitles) follows these. The audio file is here. The English transcript is below; a Russian translation which was used for subtitles for the version presented at the Forum. The powerpoint presentation I used is also streamed below. Youtube: Vimeo version: Stephan Kinsella speech at IIIrd Adam Smith Forum from ivangoe on Vimeo: Stephan Kinsella's speech at the IIIrd Adam Smith Forum from ivangoe on Vimeo. Alternative youtube version: https://youtu.be/Hl4EM7fJUd4 Slides: TRANSCRIPT Why “Intellectual Property” is not Genuine Property Stephan Kinsella Libertarian Papers, C4SIF.org Adam Smith Forum Moscow November 12, 2011 (Edited transcript) Abstract: Intellectual property rights, or IP—primarily patent and copyright—has long been viewed as a legitimate type of property right by libertarians and other defenders of capitalism and free markets. I argue that IP rights are not genuine property rights, and that these laws should be abolished. This issue is relevant to Russia and Adam Smith Forum members because of the pressure by the US on Russia and other countries to adopt western-style patent and copyright law. But the west has attempted to export many other laws and policies to other nations, many of which are not compatible with a free market, such as antitrust (competition), antibribery, tax, narcotics, and central banking laws and practices. In this talk I provide an overview of the nature of patent and copyright, followed by a discussion of the nature and purpose of law and property rights in a world of scarcity. I argue that property rights apply to scarce resources only, to permit such resources to be used peacefully, productively, and cooperatively as a means of action. However, property rights make no sense are in fact perverse and undermine genuine property rights when the law attempt to apply them to information, ideas, and knowledge. Property rights must be granted in scarce resources and only in scarce resources if we are to have prosperity, freedom, and progress in science. In fact, state IP rights are not genuine property rights, but are instead neo-mercantilist monopoly grants of privilege that protect favored recipients from competition. This enriches the patentees and copyright holders, and the state, but at the expense of consumers and competitors. I also provide an overview of the history of opposition to IP law, identifying four key historical phases beginning around 1850. I conclude the talk by observing that IP reform cannot work; the only solution is complete abolition of patent and copyright. *** Good evening. This is Stephan Kinsella. I am speaking from Houston. I would like to say good evening, or good morning, in Moscow at the Adam Smith Forum. I would like to thank Andrey Shalnev, the head of the steering committee, for this invitation to speak remotely. I am sorry I cannot be there in person, but I hope that you will find this video presentation and speech of interest. My name is Stephan Kinsella. I am a

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 107. This was one of my guest appearances on Adam vs. the Man (Oct. 25, 2011), episode "on “AVTM + Stephan Kinsella: “Intellectual Property” vs The 4th Amendment," discussing Copyright and Neo-Mercantilism and related issues. We discussed U.S. Copyright Czar Cozied Up to Content Industry, E-Mails Show and related issues such as neo-mercantilist aspects of modern patent and copyright law (discussed in my post Rothbard on Mercantilism and State “Patents of Monopoly”). This was the new, 3.0 version of Adam's show. The previous version was carried by RT (Russia Today). I had appeared a couple times on the 2.0 show—On Adam vs. The Man re Drug Patents and Adam the Man vs. IP.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 106. I was a guest today on the Peter Schiff Show (guest host Stefan Molyneux), discussing: ObamaCare's Next Legal Hurdle. Stephan Kinsella, patent attorney & director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, on how ObamaCare still fails any reasonable legal test, whether anything constructive may come from the Apple/Samsung battle, and why entrepreneurs needn't worry about their intellectual property. Links to issues discussed: Oklahoma lawsuit to derail Obamacare? House passes Innovation Act by vote of 325-91: a small solution to a big patent problem See also Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter v. the Field Codes: From an 1884 paperby James C. Carter, The Proposed Codification of Our Common Law: A Paper Prepared at the Request of The Committee of the Bar Association of the City of New York, Appointed to Oppose the Measure, defending New York's common law from David Dudley Field’s attempt to (legislatively) codify it: At present, when any doubt arises in any particular case as to what the true rule of the unwritten [i.e., judge-found, common-law developed] law is, it is at once assumed that the rule most in accordance with justice and sound policy is the one which must be declared to be the law. The search is for that rule. The appeal is squarely made to the highest considerations of morality and justice. These are the rallying points of the struggle. The contention is ennobling and beneficial to the advocates, to the judges, to the parties, to the auditors, and so indirectly to the whole community. The decision then made records another step in the advance of human reason towards that perfection after which it forever aspires. But when the law is conceded to be written down in a statute, and the only question is what the statute means, a contention unspeakably inferior is substituted. The dispute is about words. The question of what is right or wrong, just or unjust, is irrelevant and out of place. The only question is what has been written. What a wretched exchange for the manly encounter upon the elevated plane of principle! For more on problems of legislation, and discussion of legal codes and codification efforts, see myLegislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society; and the articles collected here; also my posts Book Recommendations: Private, International, and Common Law; Legal Theory and The UN, International Law, and Nuclear Weapons. In particular, for further related commentary, see my Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society, e.g., note 78 and related text.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 105. This is an interview I did a couple years ago with my friend, Dr. John McGinnis, on his radio show, “Open Mike with Dr. John McGinnis,” WRTA (Sep. 19, 2011), discussing the America Invents Act. I met John when I lived in Philadelphia in the 90s, when we were both involved with the Freeman Society of Valley Forge (FEE-related), which helped me meet Hans Sennholz and Jacob Hornberger. A former economics professor, he is now a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. For background information on the AIA, see my Mises Academy webinar, The American Invents Act and Patent Reform: The Good, the Meh, and the Ugly (audio and slides).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 104. This is my appearance as a Guest panelist on This Week in Law, Episode 97 (Feb. 4, 2011), entitled “God Creates. We Patent.” Brief description: "It's a Bing trap, Internet rights, tracking data persistence, attorney motivation, abolishing IP, life patents, and more", such as net neutrality (see: A Libertarian Take on Net Neutrality). My previous blog post about this is here. The video is below; it’s also on the TWiL page for this episode; you can also subscribe to the audio or video podcast for this show; here’s their FaceBook page. TWiL is part of Leo Laporte’s impressive and growing private TWiT (This Week in Tech) netcast network (I regularly listen to the TWiT network’s This Week in Tech, MacBreak Weekly, and TWiL, in addition to my some of my other favorite podcasts, such as Mises podcasts, Lew Rockwell, and the Slate Culture Gabfest and Slate Political Gabfest.) In addition to Howell and me, there were two other IP/tech lawyers. We had a very civil and wide-ranging discussion of a number of topics, from the Google vs. Bing “search cheating” dispute, Internet access rights as “human rights,” abolishing IP and gene patents, defensive patent publishing, lawyers as vigorous representatives of their clients’ interests, and more (most of the topics we discussed are linked on Howell's Delicious bookmarks page for that episode). I already knew Howell was a very good host, having seen the show before, but I have to say I was very pleasantly surprised at how tolerant and even libertarian-leaning the other lawyers were of my very radical anti-state, anti-IP views. We had a very good conversation and the other panelists were very receptive to my outspoken libertarian stance. Maybe there is hope!

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 103. This is my appearance as a Guest panelist on This Week in Law, Episode 133 (Oct. 13, 2011), entitled "Beyonce, Bad Laws, and Breastaurants." The two hosts and fellow guest panelist were all lawyers. We had a wide-ranging two-hour discussion about a variety of legal and policy matters, including a number of IP problems covering patent, copyright, trademark, and even trade secret. We also discussed the Occupy Wall Street movement, Apple's use of IP to squelch clones and competition, copyright threats against Beyonce for her dance moves, and many others as indicated by the links on the episode's show notes. The video is below; it's also on the TWiL page for this episode; you can also subscribe to the audio or video podcast for this show; here's their FaceBook page. A few more backup links and points below about some of the issues discussed. At one point we got into a discussion of Obama's use of a signing statement to approve ACTA as an "executive agreement" (see ACTA, Executive Agreements, and the Bricker Amendment), I noted that under international law, violation by a host state of the citizen of another state gave rise to a right for the violated citizen's home state to use military force against the host state. I remarked that one danger of internationalizing intellectual property by means of executive agreements and treaties is that it could give western nations an excuse to military force against countries that allow piracy. However, this was a bit of an overstatement since, as I explain in International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide (see this excerpt), this type of "gunboat diplomacy" is ostensibly no longer permitted since the founding of the UN in 1945: "Today, some investors hailing from militarily and politically powerful States might favor the threat or use of force to obtain restitution or compensation for expropriated property. Such an option is no longer available, however, due to fundamental changes in international law and politics. In particular, the United Nations Charter has since 1945 prohibited the use of force to resolve disputes, except in the case of self-defence. Today, it is generally accepted that a State may not use force against another State in response to a taking of the property of one of its nationals." The quote I mentioned about the problem with making law by legislation is by James Carter, who wrote, in 1884, in opposing the attempt to codify New York's common law: At present, when any doubt arises in any particular case as to what the true rule of the unwritten [i.e., judge-found, common-law developed] law is, it is at once assumed that the rule most in accordance with justice and sound policy is the one which must be declared to be the law. The search is for that rule. The appeal is squarely made to the highest considerations of morality and justice. These are the rallying points of the struggle. The contention is ennobling and beneficial to the advocates, to the judges, to the parties, to the auditors, and so indirectly to the whole community. The decision then made records another step in the advance of human reason towards that perfection after which it forever aspires. But when the law is conceded to be written down in a statute, and the only question is what the statute means, a contention unspeakably inferior is substituted. The dispute is about words. The question of what is right or wrong, just or unjust, is irrelevant and out of place. The only question is what has been written. What a wretched exchange for the manly encounter upon the elevated plane of principle! I mentioned the tension between antitrust and patent/copyright law; more discussion of this issue can be found in endnote 1 here; We discussed the America Invents Act; I've since completed a detailed writeup about this: The American Invents Act and Patent Reform: The Good, the Meh, and the Ugly; Concerning our discussion of the copyright lawsuit against Beyonce based on her dance moves in a music video, see also my posts: Copyrights and Dancing, Copyrighting Dance Steps–The Death of Choreography, and others at The Patent, Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Horror Files. On the show we briefly discussed also Pro wrestler sues rapper over hand gesture: Yet Another Example of how Intellectual Property is Partial Enslavement. [previously discussed on the Mises blog]

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 102. I was reminded recently of the excellent Canadian libertarian podcast Ed and Ethan: The Voice of Liberty in Canada when they were guest co-hosts on a recent episode of the superb Freedom Feens radio show. And that I had been a guest about a year ago. Here is my November 2012 appearance on their show, which I think was a very good and concise IP discussion. My segment is podcast here, which starts at aboot 57 minutes into the full episode, which is also linked below. The audio quality is very good on this one. I have to say—sometimes I give good podcast. And this was one of those times. “Intellectual Property Law in Canada,” Ed and Ethan Podcast: The voice of liberty in Canada (Nov. 17, 2012) (full MP3; Youtube—link down at present for some reason).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 101. This was my talk delivered at the Open Science Summit, Mountain View, CA (Oct. 22, 2011), held at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California. My panel's topic was "The Future (the End?) of 'Intellectual Property.'" My talk, "IP and the New Mercantilism," is first, and lasts about the first 19 minutes. The slideshow I used (but did not show the audience) is also below. https://youtu.be/_v6KWGNtxpg?si=cuUgqshgH0JTYiPP My original title was "IP and the New Mercantilism," but I think a better title is "Property and Science: The Twin Pillars of Prosperity and Civilization—Versus Patent and Copyright." Grok shownotes In this lecture delivered at the Open Science Summit 2011, titled “The Future: The End of Intellectual Property,” libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella argues that intellectual property (IP) laws, specifically patents and copyrights, are state-enforced monopolies that undermine property rights, science, and innovation (0:00-5:00). Kinsella, grounded in Austrian economics, explains that property rights apply only to scarce, rivalrous resources, not non-scarce ideas, using examples like a patented mousetrap to illustrate how IP restricts individuals from using their own property (5:01-15:00). He critiques IP’s historical roots in mercantilism, such as the monopolies granted by the English crown in the 1500s, and its modern harms, like stifling research and locking up cultural works, arguing that IP creates artificial scarcity in a world where knowledge should be abundant (15:01-25:00). Kinsella’s lecture positions IP as a mercantilist relic that hampers scientific and economic progress. Kinsella debunks the utilitarian claim that IP incentivizes innovation, citing how patents distort R&D by steering it toward trivial inventions and how copyrights limit the dissemination of ideas, contrasting this with IP-free models like open-source software (25:01-35:00). He draws parallels between historical mercantilist practices—such as monopolies on goods like playing cards—and modern IP enforcement, including warrantless searches and industry shakedowns, framing IP as a tool for corporate rent-seeking (35:01-45:00). In the conclusion, Kinsella calls for the complete abolition of IP, arguing that it is antithetical to property rights and science, and directs listeners to his resources at c4sif.org for further exploration (45:01-47:26). The lecture is a concise yet powerful libertarian critique, ideal for those interested in open science and the future of innovation without IP. Grok Detailed Summary below Background: See my posts Open Science Summit Streaming Live; Kinsella on Panel at Open Science Summit. Update: The transcript of my talk is here and below. If the video embed below does not work, the video of the lecture may be found here. Grok Detailed Summary Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block [Time markers may be inaccurate Grok estimates] Summaries Overview Stephan Kinsella’s KOL101 podcast, recorded at the Open Science Summit 2011, is a lecture titled “The Future: The End of Intellectual Property.” As a libertarian patent attorney and Austrian economics adherent, Kinsella argues that IP laws—patents and copyrights—are state-enforced monopolies that violate property rights, impede science, and stifle innovation. The 47-minute lecture critiques IP’s philosophical, historical, and practical flaws, advocating for its abolition to foster a free market of ideas and open science. Below is a summary with bullet points for key themes and detailed descriptions for approximately 5-15 minute blocks, based on the provided transcript. Key Themes with Time Markers Introduction and Austrian Economics (0:00-5:00): Kinsella introduces his anti-IP stance, grounding it in Austrian economics and the concept of scarcity. Property Rights and Scarcity (5:01-15:00): Argues property rights apply to scarce resources, not ideas, showing IP’s conflict with libertarianism. Historical Roots and Mercantilism (15:01-25:00): Traces IP to mercantilist monopolies, critiquing its role in creating artificial scarcity. Economic and Scientific Harms (25:01-35:00): Details IP’s distortion of R&D and cultural access, contrasting with IP-free innovation. Modern Mercantilism and Enforcement (35:01-45:00): Compares IP to historical mercantilism, highlighting corporate rent-seeking and enforcement abuses. Conclusion and Call for Abolition (45:01-47:26): Urges IP’s abolition, directing listeners to resources for further anti-IP arguments. Block-by-Block Summaries 0:00-5:00 (Introduction and Austrian Economics) Description: Kinsella opens at the Open Science Summit, thanking host Joseph and introducing himself as a libertarian patent attorney and Austrian economics adherent (0:00-2:00). He explains the Austrian school’s free-market, non-positivist methodology, linking it to the lecture’s focus on IP’s in

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 100. Note: Also podcast at PFP116. This is my speech at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society (Sept. 22, 2013, Bodrum, Turkey). The video and slides are below. See also the Q&A panel [PFP117], which contains several interchanges between me and Sean Gabb about this issue. See also Sean Gabb's article Stephan Kinsella on Limited Liability (2013), Reported by Sean Gabb (Oct. 6, 2013), to which I intend to reply at a later time. For background, see: Kinsella, Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation; In Defense of the Corporation Robert Hessen, In Defense of the Corporation (Hoover 1978) Firms: google various recent Mises University lectures by Peter Klein on the theory of the firm Yaron Brook, “The Corporation” (Ayn Rand Institute, 2007) KOL 026 | FreeDomain Radio with Stefan Molyneux discussing Corporations and Limited Liability Stephan Kinsella, "The Role of the Corporation and Limited Liability In a Free Society" from Property & Freedom Society on Vimeo.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 099. This was my appearance on the Agora I/O: The Liberty Unconference: Open Source Agorism: Prosper Without Patents or Copyrights from 2011. The video(s) are below. Interesting factoid: I was set to do the show, using Justin.tv, but for some reason neither of my MacBooks would work with the Justin.tv interface. I saw an option for "mobile device." It was 5 minutes to showtime. I quickly downloaded Justin.tv app on my iphone, got out a little iPod tripod I had never used, signed in, hit the record button, and voilá--I was on Justin.tv streaming live, using my iphone. I was using my MacBook to watch it live, and to monitor questions typed on a facebook stream by the 45 or so participants. Quite amazing. (There are three videos b/c I had a couple of glitches/crashes and had to re-start my iPhone stream twice.) [Update: the original videos seem to be lost because everyone in this space is a half-assed bozo. I should have downloaded them at the time. Lesson learned.] https://youtu.be/x3utqKWQZAc Watch live video from Agora I/O: Peaceful Evolution on Justin.tv Watch live video from Agora I/O: Peaceful Evolution on Justin.tv Watch live video from Agora I/O: Peaceful Evolution on Justin.tv

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 098. This is my appearance on the Oct. 19, 2013 Nomad Capitalist show, interviewed by Andrew Henderson. My segment beings at about 17:00. Topics discussed: Austrian economics, intellectual property law, escaping the USA 0:00 Andrew leads off the show, live from Bangkok. He discusses the end of the government shutdown – and how to avoid the next, even more draconian version the US government has up its sleeve. Plus, he shares why the rest of the world doesn’t and shouldn’t care about shenanigans in the US. Andrew discusses how you are not a product of the borders you’re born within; you can define yourself as an individual, not as a government slave. He talks about the upcomingPassport to Freedom event 13:35 Guest: Stephan Kinsella (Twitter) Anarcho-capitalist, liberty activist, and intellectual property lawyer Stephan Kinsella discusses why he believes intellectual property law is a sham and nothing more than crony capitalism. He shares his Austrian economics ideals and how he believes they can be better implemented in the USSA. Plus, Stephan and Andrew discuss why Shark Tank is the best show on television, and Stephan explains why he won’t be leaving his native Houston to live overseas any time soon. He and Andrew debate the merits of living overseas with a family and perpetual travel. Also mentioned in this show: Jeffrey Tucker Kevin O’Leary If you like our content, subscribe to our free email newsletter and get a free whitepaper. Subscribe to our weekly radio show on iTunes and never miss a minute! Plus, check out our past radio shows and listen on demand.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 097. This is my interview on the Double Crossed radio show with host Chuck Horton. We discussed a variety of intellectual property related issues, some centered on some of my previous speeches and courses, such as “The Intellectual Property Quagmire, or, The Perils of Libertarian Creationism,” Austrian Scholars Conference 2008 and Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics,” (Mises Academy, Mar. 22-April 26, 2011) (discussed on the Mises Blog in Study with Kinsella Online and in Rethinking Intellectual Property: Kinsella’s Mises Academy Online Course). See also Karl Fogel on the history of copyright.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 096. This is a show I did Jan. 18, 2012, on WMNF 88.5 Radio, "Live for Liberty with Blake Westlake and Chris Horan," which was just uploaded to YouTube. Chris Horan kindly forwarded the link to me. We had a nice, short interview about the anti-competitive nature of intellectual property law.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 095. This was my appearance on Daniel Rothschild’s youtube channel on Nov. 8, 2013; we discussed a variety of topics, getting really into the nitty-gritty of a lot of aspects of libertarian legal theory. Links to related material below: How We Come To Own Ourselves, Mises Daily (Sep. 7, 2006) (Mises.org blog discussion; audio version) Causation and Aggression (co-authored with Patrick Tinsley), The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, vol. 7, no. 4 (winter 2004): 97-112 Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach, 12:1 Journal of Libertarian Studies 51 (Spring 1996) “What Libertarianism Is,” Mises Daily (August 21, 2009) A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide,” Mises Daily (May 27, 2011) KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery KOL018 | “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society: Lecture 1: Libertarian Basics: Rights and Law” (Mises Academy, 2011)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 094. This is the audio for episode 004 of Liberty Talk, a weekly Google hangout-based podcast with Jeffrey Tucker and me (Google Plus page; Youtube Channel). [Update: for more on whether bitcoin is ownable property, see this Facebook thread. And see: Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable. See also: "in the WSJ article Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, the article notes that legal tender laws are, in fact, jeopardizing BTC. Bitcoins are now classified by the IRS as “property” “instead of” as legal tender money, meaning capital gains taxes are owed on transactions. I mentioned this danger in my talk; a similar problem afflicts the re-adoption of gold or silver as money. But as I noted in the Q&A to my talk, I am not persuaded that bitcoins are ownable resources—things subject to property rights. The IRS here assumes that something is either money or property. This is one danger of BTC advocates using the language of property rights to describe bitcoins. I would argue that bitcoins are not legally owned and thus capital gains taxes are not applicable—or at least, this is one argument the target of a government tax evasion suit might want to use." KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender ] This week we talked to Cody Wilson, Director of Defense Distributed, inventor of the world-first working 3D printed gun, "The Liberator", and director of DarkWallet. See his Indiegogo campaign to fund Bitcoin Dark Wallet (see video below). Jeff asked him to recommend some of the books that had influenced him. They are: The Society of the Spectacle, by Guy Dubord The History of Sexuality, by Michel Foucault On the Genealogy of Morality, by Nietzsche

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 093. This is the audio for episode 003 of Liberty Talk, a new weekly-ish Google hangout-based podcast with Jeffrey Tucker and me (Google Plus page; Youtube Channel). This week we talked to Justin Hanners, a fired Auburn, Alabama cop (see Citizens Behind Officer Justin Hanners). He dropped by Jeff's office so we snagged a quick interview. He talks about police corruption and ticket quotas.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 092. This is my appearance on Michael Shanklin’s Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast with Michael Shanklin (Oct. 30, 2013). We discussed a variety of topics around IP and other issues, such as Can You Trade Something You Don't Own?, Polycentrism, Contract theory, argumentation ethics, and so on. Some background material for these topics can be found at: A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 KOL 044 | “Correcting some Common Libertarian Misconceptions” (PFS 2011) (see slide 7) KOL 049 | “Libertarian Controversies Lecture 5″ (Mises Academy, 2011) (see slide 15) “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide,” Mises Daily (May 27, 2011) The Origin of “Libertarianism” Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation KOL 026 | FreeDomain Radio with Stefan Molyneux discussing Corporations and Limited Liability KOL 025 | Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast, with Michael Shanklin: Intellectual Property, Ron Paul vs RonPaul.Com, Aaron Swartz, Corporatism

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 091. This is the audio for episode 002 of Liberty Talk, a new weekly-ish Google hangout-based podcast with Jeffrey Tucker and me (Google Plus page; Youtube Channel). This week we talked to Sheldon Richman about Obamacare and the origin of his anti-IP views. For more, see Sheldon's articles: Sheldon Richman on Intellectual Property versus Liberty Intellectual “Property” Versus Real Property: What Are Copyrights and What Do They Mean for Liberty?, The Freeman (12 June 2009 Patent Nonsense, The American Conservative (Jan. 1, 2012) Slave Labor and Intellectual Property: On a misplaced analogy, The Freeman Online(June 3, 2011) See also the FEE debate Sheldon mentions in the discussion: Intellectual Property Rights Debate; the Paul Cwik piece mentioned is discussed here.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 090. I spoke at Liberty on the Rocks-Houston last night on the topic of intellectual property. Nice crowd and a good time. I touched on a number of matters, from negative servitudes to positive rights. Zoe Russell and others did a great job running/arranging this. This is my own iPhone recording: not great quality, but mostly listenable. A better video/audio version ought to be forthcoming soon. In the meantime.... have fun.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 089. This is my appearance earlier today (10/23/2013) on Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock radio show. We talked intellectual property, including libertarian sci-fi author L. Neil Smith's pro-IP views (see The L. Neil Smith – FreeTalkLive Copyright Dispute; Smith, Unanimous Consent and the Utopian Vision or I Dreamed I Was a Signatory In My Maidenform Bra; Shire Society Forum, Topic: L. Neil Smith has Important Shire Business; L. Neil Smith, A New Covenant). 2013-10-23 Hour 2 Stephan Kinsella from Ernest Hancock on Vimeo.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 088. This is the audio for episode 001 of Liberty Talk, a new weekly-ish Google hangout-based podcast with Jeffrey Tucker and me (Google Plus page; Youtube Channel). This week Jeff and I talked a variety of issues, including Jeff's recent Crypto-Currency Conference in Atlanta, his impromptu 50-person bar meetup in New York before the Students for Liberty regional conference in NY; and Jeff's thoughts on what he calls "the new libertarianism": a movement characterized by optimistic, entrepreneurial, pro-tech and smart young people interested in incorporating liberty into their lives; circumventing the state instead of pleading for it to give them an inch more of freedom, etc. Update: See Jeff's Freeman article The New Libertarianism.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 087. This was my appearance on Michael Shanklin's Voluntary Virtues Vodcast. We talked about the Stefan Molyneux vs. Zeitgeist guy "Peter Joseph" etc. Jeff Tucker made an impromptu entrance at the end, discombobulating everyone, as is his wont. Background: Zeitgeist Versus the Market - Peter Joseph Debates Stefan Molyneux Zeitgeist Examined: Peter Joseph/Stefan Molyneux Debate Analysis Peter Joseph on Stefan Molyneux: "The Art of Nonsense" | Pathology or Con-Artistry?

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 086. Last weekend I gave a talk “The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender,” at Jeff Tucker's Crypto-Currency Conference: Bitcoin and the Future of Money (Atlanta, Oct. 5, 2013). See KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender; slides below. Video/professional audio to be released later. Pix here and here. This is an interview I did with Kurt Wallace, of RARE radio, whom I met at the CCC. We discussed a variety of issues about bitcoin; the transcript is below. Rare Conversation LISTEN: Why the U.S. will declare war on Bitcoin PBS News Hour clip: The currency known as Bitcoin, which made headlines earlier this week when the FBI seized Silk Road, the popular online black marketplace for drugs and other contraband, payable by Bitcoin had done over a billion dollars worth of business in just the last two years. Kurt Wallace for Rare: Bitcoin has made headlines on PBS News Hour, sparked by an online Bitcoin drug trafficking site. Mainstream companies are popping up all over the place, big time investors are getting involved in this emerging sector and there are crypto-currency conferences monthly and sometimes weekly all over the world. Even Canada has introduced their own government-backed digital currency called mint-chip. What is the future here in the United States regarding Bitcoin and digital currency? Here to help us out is registered patent attorney Stephan Kinsella, founder of Libertarian Papers and former adjunct professor at the South Texas College of Law. Good to have you on Stephan, thank you for joining us today. Stephan Kinsella: Thank you very much glad to be here. Rare: Silk Road is this online black-market that was shut down by the FBI last week. Should people be worried about using Bitcoin in the United States? Kinsella: I don’t think using Bitcoin itself is a big concern. Silk Road itself might be a different issue. You have to consider your own risks in using Silk Road, but Bitcoin itself … no, you can use Bitcoin without being implicated with the Silk Road issues right now. Rare: What’s happened with Silk Road, is that a benefit for Bitcoin or it that bad for Bitcoin? Kinsella: I think it’s good and bad, if you think about. Everything that people accuse Bitcoin of being bad for is true of the U.S. dollar. People are saying that Bitcoin is used for drug transactions. Well the U.S. dollar is used for that too. All the bad things that people accuse Bitcoin of are being used by the U.S. dollar. It’s just an alternative currency that people use. As long as you are careful and as long as you don’t use it for illegal transactions you should be OK. Rare: The U.S. government has the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty and the War on Terror and we were at this crypto-currency conference in Atlanta over the weekend, there were a lot of Libertarians there. A lot of people concerned about their freedoms and their ability to live their lives without government interference. Do we see a possibility of the United States government declaring a war on Bitcoin? Kinsella: Yes, I think there is a concern there, and the concern is that if the U.S. government sees a significant threat to its hegemony over the currency of the U.S. dollar, or the world monetary system. They will try and crack down on it. But we have seen this in the internet as well. I don’t believe the U.S. government, if they had known in the early 1990s what the internet would evolve into, I don’t think they would have allowed it. But it’s a little too late for them to stop it, I hope. I’m puzzling the same is true of Bitcoin and similar currencies. Rare: What part is Bitcoin going to play in the future of legal tender in the United States, with the rest of the world already embracing Bitcoin like in Europe and again Canada having their own digital currency? Kinsella: The legal tender is just another tool in the toolbox at stake that they can resort to when they need to, to try and crack down on people that threaten their systems. The dollar, the dollar estimate and the interest system of the world monetary order, and really doesn’t need to crack down to far right now, other than counterfeiting and things like this. As Roosevelt and other charlatan authorities, they will seize gold, they will outlaw gold clauses and contracts, and they will do what they have to do to protect their monetary system. If Bitcoin emerges as something that threatens the dollar supremacy, you can expect the state to try and react, and try to ban transactions with Bitcoin using legal tender law and whatever provisions they have available to them. Rare: What if the Federal Reserve thought this was to overwhelming for them on the world market and tried to hedge by creating their own crypto-currency, will they do that? Kinsella: I think its possible that the world currencies will try to modernize and use digital methods, but what they are trying to do is use technology to basically track and implement their own

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 085 Relevant links at KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019). See also: Bitcoin Confiscation vs. Gold Confiscation This is the audio (from my iPhone) of my talk “The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender,” from the Crypto-Currency Conference: Bitcoin and the Future of Money (Atlanta, Oct. 5, 2013). Slides below. Video/professional audio to be released later. Pix here and here. https://youtu.be/myTq7ydbYO8 Update: Video is available here (BAD LINK) Transcript below. Update: See also Bitcoin Magazine's: OCTOBER 2013 CRYPTO-CURRENCY CONFERENCE PREVIEW: On October 4 through 5, Atlanta, Georgia will host the 2013 Crypto-currency Conference: Bitcoin and the Future of Money. Bitcoin Magazine is proud to serve as a sponsor alongside of Let’s Talk Bitcoin, The Bitcoin Foundation, Students for Liberty, FEE, and Atlanta Bitcoin of this conference spearheaded by Jeffrey Tucker, Executive Editor of Laissez Faire Club and Laissez Faire Books, Distinguished Fellow for the Foundation for Economic Education, and Research Fellow of the Action Institute. The purpose of the conference will be to connect monetary economists, legal theorists, banking pundits, code-slinging visionaries, miners, and payment-systems analysts to shed light on the rise of Bitcoin. As Bitcoin is not just a currency but a movement towards greater economic freedom the 2013 Crypto-Conference will address the following questions: What does the success of Bitcoin imply for the theory, practice, and future of money and payment systems? How can we account for the sheer implausibility of Bitcoin’s rise? What does its emergence imply for the prospects of nationalized systems of money and the future of human liberty and commerce? Will Bitcoin go the way of most innovations and fall prey to government’s dead hand of regulation and strangulation? The Conference team hopes to shed light on how Bitcoin, in contrast to most currencies, has in fact increased in value over time. Over the past 100 years, the value of money has fallen to carry only about 5 of its purchasing power. As a decentralized, digital currency, Bitcoin is not beholden to a central bank and has emerged as a solution to bypass fiat money. The speed and ease of transaction makes the crypto-standard stronger than the gold standards. The Conference will open with a Friday night reception at the office of BitPay, Inc., one of the lead Bitcoin payment processing companies, where guests will hear from musician Tatiana Moroz who as a guitarist and songwriter sings about human liberty. On Saturday morning, Jeffrey Tucker will provide the keynote address, “A New Currency for the Digital Age,” at the The Twelve Hotel in Atlantic Station, a post-industrial hub of Atlanta. Panels will include discussions of Money and Freedom, Cryptography and Contracts, Merchantcraft, and Future Development. Speakers include Tony Gallippi (CEO, BitPay) and Stephen Pair (CTO, BitPay), Stephen Kinsella (Executive Editor, Libertarian Papers), Doug French (Senior Editor, Laissez Faire Club), Michael Goldstein (Co-Founder, The Mises Circle), Peter Surda (Author, Economics of Bitcoin), Charlie Schrem (CEO, BitInstant), Charles Hoskinson (CEO, Invictus Innovations Incorporated), Daniel Larimer (CTO, Invictus Innovations Incorporated), Cathy Reisenwitz (Writer and Political Commentator, Reason Magazine), Adam B. Levine (Editor in Chief, Let’s Talk Bitcoin), Tuur Demeester (Author, MacroTrends), Daniel Krawisz (Libertarian Activist). The evening will conclude with a cocktail reception featuring Austin Craig and Beccy Bingham’s story, “Life on Bitcoin.” Austin and Becky as newlyweds took the challenges of living for 90 days on Bitcoin alone and will share of their journey which is shortly coming to a close. THE REST OF THE YEAR: BITCOIN CONVENTION ROUNDUP: Crypto-Currency Conference – this conference will be more focused on philosophical issues than the others, with speakers like Laissez Faire Books’ Jeffrey Tucker, libertarian legal theorist Stephan Kinsella and the Mises Institute’s Doug French, as well as the Bitcoin economist Peter Surda, Adam Levine and BitPay’s Tony Gallippi. The conference will take place on October 5 in Atlanta. *** Also: in the WSJ article Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, the article notes that legal tender laws are, in fact, jeopardizing BTC. Bitcoins are now classified by the IRS as "property" "instead of" as legal tender money, meaning capital gains taxes are owed on transactions. I mentioned this danger in my talk; a similar problem afflicts the re-adoption of gold or silver as money. But as I noted in the Q&A to my talk, I am not persuaded that bitcoins are ownable resources—things subject to property rights. The IRS here assumes that something is either money or property. This is one danger of BTC advocates using the language of property rights to describe bitcoins. I would argue that bitcoins are not legally owned and thus capital gains