Kinsella On Liberty: Recent Episodes
Stephan Kinsella
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 432.My appearance on Adam Haman's podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack), episode 27. I have previously argued against "school choice" (KOL419 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Corey Deangelis: School Choice). Adam wrote an article promoting school choice and I objected to it. He invited me to come back on his show to discuss and I did and, well, he kinda sorta changed my mind, or at least softened my opposition.I love these kind of real conversations when people actually listen to each other with the shared goal of promoting liberty and reaching the truth, and with no ego or other investments involved that could prevent you from seeing reason or truth or the other guy's position and even being willing to change your mind. And I like when I lose! I mean it rarely happens, but I like it--it means I learned something. Which is also increasingly rare. Enjoy!https://youtu.be/WOcHI4Jtn9s?si=6U-GX8013NJtWYvhAdam's shownotes:Well, "debate" is too strong a word, but brilliant smarty-pants Stephan Kinsella had some disagreements about an article Adam wrote about school choice and was gracious enough to come on Haman Nature to discuss them.00:00 – Intro.01:15 -- Happy birthday to Adam! Stephan's gives him an... odd present. Also, Adam recounts the article he wrote that prompted this talk.02:54 -- Stephan lays out his position on school choice, and similar "reform" measures or "incrementalism".06:55 – Adam defends. Let the "debate" begin!15:33 – Adam scores a point!17:13 – And another! And possibly another (depending on... math)!22:15 – Adam swings hard. Is it a home run? 24:26 – Adam makes a prediction about markets and innovations under school choice.26:10 -- Stephan makes some strong and principled objections.28:52 -- Adam scores another point! Plus, the biggest moment in the entire episode.33:36 -- A very important legislative clause to watch like a hawk. Also, is it worth the risk?35:18 -- Say it was up to you as the deciding vote. Which way do you cast it?38:36 -- Hey, Corey! Plus, Stephan gives Adam a much better birthday present!39:57 -- Outro.SubscribeStephan Kinsella's website:Haman Nature article mentioned:Stephan's Soho Forum debate with Corey DeAngelis on School Choice:Adam's other show: Natural Order Podcast
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 431.My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Exploring Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics with Stephan Kinsella. (Spotify)https://youtu.be/hgPJCebYj-I?si=hPN2vGmj_dbkdtk4From his shownotes:In a stimulating episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz engages in a thought-provoking discussion and debate with Stephan Kinsella, a prominent libertarian writer and patent attorney, on Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics. Drawing on their deep knowledge of libertarian legal theory and philosophical principles, Michael and Stephan delve into the nuances of Hoppe's argument and its implications for understanding individual rights and property norms.Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics serves as the focal point of this conversation, as Michael and Stephan critically examine its premises, logic, and implications. With rigorous analysis and intellectual rigor, they explore the foundational principles underlying argumentation ethics and assess its strengths and weaknesses as a framework for understanding natural rights and ethical norms.Listeners will be treated to a dynamic exchange of ideas and perspectives, as Michael and Stephan engage in a spirited debate on key aspects of argumentation ethics, including its reliance on self-ownership, the universality of ethical principles, and its compatibility with other libertarian theories of property and justice. Through reasoned discourse and respectful disagreement, they offer listeners a comprehensive overview of the complexities involved in grappling with foundational questions of ethics and rights.This episode is not just an intellectual exercise but also a testament to the vitality of philosophical inquiry and the importance of engaging in robust dialogue to deepen our understanding of fundamental concepts. Whether you're a seasoned libertarian thinker, a student of philosophy, or someone curious about the intersection of ethics and political theory, this episode offers a captivating exploration of Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics and its implications for our understanding of individual freedom and moral principles.Tune in to The Rational Egoist for an enlightening conversation with Stephan Kinsella, as we delve into the intricacies of Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics and its relevance for contemporary debates on rights, justice, and human flourishing. Whether you find yourself nodding in agreement or raising questions of your own, this episode promises to ignite your curiosity and inspire deeper reflection on the principles that underpin a free and just society.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 429.This is my presentation, “An Insider’s Introduction to Austrian Economics,” Bastiat Society—Houston, American Institute for Economic Research, The Briar Club, Houston Texas (May 2, 2024). From their shownotes:Join AIER’s Bastiat Society program in Houston for an event with Stephan Kinsella, libertarian writer and registered patent attorney in Houston.Mr. Kinsella is both an internationally recognized scholar on libertarian legal theory and a former Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute. The Mises Institute’s purpose is to promote teaching and research in the Austrian school of economics in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. In the foreword to Stephan’s most recent book, Legal Foundations of a Free Society, the great Austrian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe said, “Henceforth, then, all essential studies in the philosophy of law and the field of legal theory will have to take full account of the theories and criticisms expounded by Kinsella.” Stephan will be introducing Austrian economics that is in part shaped by the rare insights one can only get as a scholar and insider.This is my first talk on a purely economic topic. I tried not to dumb it down but also not talk over people's heads, but I only had 45 minutes. This is the recording I made on my iphone.My notes:An Insider’s Introduction to Austrian EconomicsStephan KinsellaThe Bastiat Society—Houston, American Institute for Economic ResearchThe Briar Club, Houston TexasMay 2, 2024 Some of you may have heard in recent years of “Austrian economics” Used to be relatively obscure Now most people into Bitcoin are into it Most libertarians are into it Most Austrians happen to be libertarians too But they are distinct: you can be an Austrian and not a libertarian, but it’s rare; or a libertarian and know nothing about economics Ron Paul has been promoting it for decades “End the Fed!” Recently it’s making more of a surge For example, recently the Brazilian UFC fighter Renato Moicano, after winning a recent UFC fight, shouted out: “I love private property and let me tell you something, if you care about your country, read Ludwig von Mises and the six lessons of the Austrian economic school” I thought it was an AI “deepfake” at first, but no…. https://tomwoods.com/ep-2483-ufcs-renato-moicano-and-mises-six-lessons/ And of course Javier Milei, the new libertarian President of Argentina, is a self-proclaimed Austrian economist How did I get interested in it I am not an economist, but I’ve studied Austrian economics for 30 years Had to take an introductory course in economics as an engineer Immediately saw the problems with the Phillips curve Why would all the homeless or unemployed people dying overnight necessarily imply price inflation? Made no sense to me The professor: well the curve would just shift. I read Ayn Rand. Jerome Tuccille: It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand. In her Capitalism book, she recommended books by Mises, and other books like Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, so one thing led to the other Over the years I’ve focused on developing libertarian legal theory but I have relied heavily on Austrian economics thinking For example, my new book Legal Foundations of a Free Society rests heavily on Austrian economic thinkingEconomics as a Science Austrian economics views economics as a science What is science? A systematic study of a type of phenomenon, of a realm of phenomenon We nowadays think of “science” as basically physics and the “testable” empirical sciences But there are axiomatic-deductive sciences, like the laws of applied logic—where propositions are not “tested” And then, there are empirical sciences, like physics: where the “scientific method” is followed: scientists see results,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 429.A facebook friend from Brazil, Bruno Pires, corresponded with me about some various issues and we decided to discuss it for a podcast episode. We discuss a variety of issues.See his promoted VPN sponsor Aria VPN.https://youtu.be/a8YdkT2_Tec
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 428.I was a guest on Episode 316 of The Bob Murphy Show, entitled “Stephan Kinsella on Rothbard’s Contributions to Legal Theory." Bob's shownotes: "Stephan joins Bob to discuss his new book, Legal Foundations of a Free Society. They cover Rothbard’s contributions to legal theory, as well as Bob and Stephan’s differing entry points into libertarianism."https://youtu.be/iWx8DKMwk30?si=54KjWm_BndPX4a_e
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 427.Yesterday (April 10, 2024) I participated in Strings Attached: Tracing the Global Systems that Bind, 62nd Annual International Affairs Symposium, Lewis & Clark College, Portland Oregon, Debate 5: Pirates and Patents. Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism?My opponent was Pieter Cleppe. My notes are appended below.https://youtu.be/f_cpqc-oHd0We got along well and had a nice dinner after the debate.(Unofficial iphone Audio (mp3)) Strings Attached: Tracing the Global Systems that Bind.62nd Annual International Affairs SymposiumDebate 5: Pirates and Patents. Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism?Lewis & Clark College, Portland OregonApril 10, 2024Stephan Kinsella Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism? “Patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc, are intangible legal protections that allow creators to monopolize the distribution of their ideas. The international system managing these rights is often praised for promoting and protecting innovation. However, it raises the costs of acquiring new technologies, life-saving medicines, and access to knowledge for developing states. How should international intellectual property standards balance these competing interests?” Introduction I am a practicing patent and intellectual property, or IP, attorney for 30 years and a libertarian for even longer than that. At the dawn of my career, after many years of research and thought, I came to the conclusion that all forms of IP law are completely unjust. This perspective will inform my remarks today. Notice my opponent’s remarks were not systematic and did not carefully define the relevant terms. In fact his arguments rested on two false assumptions: that patent and copyright increase innovation, and that IP law is therefore justified. Imperialism and IP What is imperialism? Imperialism: “a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force.” “Imperialism is when a country extends its power into other territories for economic or political gain.” Now, IP law is prevalent in the west: patent, copyright, trademark, and other forms. There can be little doubt that the west, especially the United States, has used its influence and power to push or even coerce other countries to adopt US-style IP law, primarily patent and copyright This is done sometimes by direct imposition or, more usually, by softer forms of coercion such as investment and free trade agreements or other international treaties Direct imposition/coercion: for example the US expanded Iraqi patent law by decree in 2004, by order of Paul Bremer, the “Administrator” of the “Coalition Provisional Authority” German constitution, or “Basic Law,” 1949, under US domination: Article 96 authorizes the establishment by federal law of the Federal Patent Court Example below: under pressures from the west, the Thai government specifically undertook not to implement Article 8 (on compulsory licensing) for HIV/AIDS treatment Treaties: The Berne Convention already requires member states to have a minimum copyright term of life of the author plus 50 years; the US has added 20 years to this(life plus 70) Treaties such as the Paris Convention and Patent Cooperation Treaty require member states to maintain certain minimum patent protections The US uses its dominant position to force other countries or regions to adopt US-style IP policies via “free trade” agreements and others like Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) 2500 BITs in the world today, many US-sponsored
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 426.Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project, which aims to promote the Non-Aggression Principle as a universal peace agreement, and I discussed various issues including: immigration and open borders, and so on.(See previous episode with Matthew, KOL372 | Discussing Contract Theory, Restitution, Punishment, with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity and KOL362 | California Gold #6, with Matt Sands: Defining Libertarianism, Anarchism and Voluntaryism.)https://youtu.be/zXKxc8QxqKoRelated links: Switzerland, Immigration, Hoppe, Raico, Callahan A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders, LewRockwell.com, September 1, 2005 Van Dun on Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement Libertarian Answer Man: Homesteading Donuts, Hostile Encirclement, and Prostitution as Selling One’s Body
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 425.From Adam Haman's show Haman Nature. Released Feb. 15, 2024.From Adam's shownotes:Adam gets all intellectual and stuff with Stephan Kinsella. Part two of this interview explains why the concept of "intellectual" property is illegitimate and impedes humanity's progress. [Previous episode: KOL423 | Haman Nature Ep. 1: Getting Argumentative.]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vpTQHLw_kcUpdate: See the response/commentary video:https://youtu.be/k23t_8cUSmA?si=ImRcLsE7YB-dKWBj00:00 – Intro 01:15 – Introducing two amazing books: Stephan's Against Intellectual Property and Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine. Then Stephan touches on many aspects of the philosophical and consequential aspects of intellectual property laws. The dude goes all over the place! There's no stopping him! He knows so much! 26:38 -- Outro
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 424.This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast (WiM430; Youtube channel; recorded Feb. 2, 2024; released Feb. 15, 2024). This one is independent of the “Stephan Kinsella Series” as it is about my own new book, instead of focusing on Hoppe's work.Episode Summary: Stephan Kinsella joins me to discuss his book, Legal Foundations of a Free Society. We talk about the concept of self-ownership, the classification of rights, the significance of contracts, and the state monopoly.// OUTLINE //00:00:00 - Coming up00:00:21 - Intro00:01:54 - Helping Lightning Startups with In Wolf's Clothing00:02:41 - Introducing Stephan Kinsella00:03:39 - The Concept of Self-Ownership00:07:45 - Classification of Rights00:10:25 - Defining Liberty00:13:18 - The Non-Aggression Axiom00:16:23 - Understanding the Nuances of Intellectual Property Rights00:22:14 - The Right to Exclude00:26:00 - The Rules of Ownership00:30:21 - Finding Objective Link to Prevent Conflict00:33:22 - The Right to Self-Ownership00:38:50 - Transformation of Libertinism00:42:05 - Run Your Business from Anywhere with NetSuite00:43:10 - Secure Your Bitcoin Stash with the iCoin Hardware Wallet00:44:20 - The Right to Self-Defense00:47:00 - Self-Ownership and Slavery00:49:29 - Violation of Contracts00:54:47 - Contract: Independent Title Transfer00:56:51 - Terms of the Contract01:02:11 - Loan and Repayment01:06:00 - Enhance Your Brain Power with Mind Lab Pro01:07:06 - Take Control of Your Healthcare with CrowdHealth01:08:13 - Purpose of Political System01:15:01 - The State Monopoly01:20:30 - Where to Find Stephan on the Internet
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 423.My appearance as the first guess on Adam Haman's new podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack).As I noted in the initial discussion, this is the fourth or fifth podcast for which I was the first guest, the others being KOL374 | The Intellectual Contributions of Hans-Hermann Hoppe: The Great Fiction Podcast Ep. 1, KOL078 | Lions of Liberty Podcast Inaugural Episode: Intellectual Property, KOL244 | “YOUR WELCOME” with Michael Malice Ep. 001: Intellectual Property, Prostate Cancer, and KOL347 | This Time I’m Curious Ep. 1: The Libertarian Movement, AI Rights, UFOs, Music, Movies, Alcohol.Shownotes:Adam and Stephen discuss argumentation ethics which of course means they also talk about museums. Part 1 of a 2 episode interview.https://youtu.be/00MQjVoHgYI?si=yGoO7GfLW1EFx2X6Time marks: 00:00 – Intro 2:50 – Remembering PorcFest 2023 and fun with the creature from Bretton Woods. 5:52 – Introducing Stephan's new book: Legal Foundations of a Free Society. 7:00 – Libertarianism in America, then and now. 9:35 – With the change in the way we consume information, is intellectualism dead? 13:58 – The origins of this book: activism vs. preaching to the remnant. The value of engaging these ideas deeply to maximize credibility and effectiveness. 18:40 – From Marx to Rothbard: People who care about ideas are reachable and teachable. 20:17 – Exploring argumentation ethics. To understand liberty, we must understand property. 29:13 – Oh crap! Does Elon Musk own us? 29:31 – Back to argumentation ethics. Is v. ought. Natural order arguments. 35:31 -- A very brief discussion of Michael Huemer and intuitionism. 37:23 -- Five blind men describing an elephant - all roads lead to liberty. 40:30 -- OutroPix of Adam, me and others at Bretton Woods at PorcFest 2023...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 422.A new podcast by Dumo Denga, ManPatria, has just released an audio narration of my article "What Libertarianism Is" for its first episode, entitled "What is Libertarianism." This narration appears to be based on the original article, not the updated version that appears as chap. 2 of Legal Foundations of a Free Society.There is also a previous narration of this article by Graham Wright (KOL005).
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 421.This is my appearance on Episode 297 of The Local Maximum with host Max Sklar. Recorded Sep. 13, 2023, published Sep. 27, 2023. From their shownotes:Max talks to Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian intellectual property lawyer who ardently challenges the very foundations of IP. Kinsella delves deep into the core arguments underpinning intellectual property and the inherent fallacies. They also discuss the impact of generative AI on the copyright landscape.Transcript below.TranscriptMax Sklar: You're listening to the Local Maximum episode 297.Narration: Time to expand your perspective. Welcome to the Local Maximum. Now here's your host, Max Sklar.Max: Welcome everyone, welcome, you have reached another Local Maximum. We are going to get a really interesting perspective on intellectual property today from Stephan Kinsella. He is an intellectual property lawyer who is actually against the whole concept of intellectual property that includes patents, copyright, the whole thing. Now, for those of us on the outside, there's still a lot that we need to learn about IP, like, what are all these different concepts? Why are they considered necessary by the mainstream?So we go back to basics a little bit, go over what patent and copyright is and why you still need to use it and think about it even if you don't agree with it. And then we're going to take a turn into the issues of the day with generative AI models and how copyright law may end up getting applied to these processes, by the authorities, by the powers that be and the harm that this could possibly do.All right. My next guest is a libertarian writer and registered patent attorney in Houston. He has spoken, lectured and published widely on various areas of libertarian legal theory and on legal topics, such as intellectual property law and international law. Stephan Kinsella, you've reached the Local Maximum, welcome to the show.Stephan Kinsella:Thank you, glad to be here.Max: Yeah, really glad to have you and your work on intellectual property and copyright. First of all, that's a topic that, you know, not everyone can make it interesting for me, whenever I listen to your stuff on it, I always I always find it's more interesting. So I appreciate that. And I agree with you on a lot of things. So that's it. I just appreciate the way you present it.You've been opposed to IP for quite a while. When did you come to this kind of full? Well, what is your full position? I think it's like, you know, no patent, no copyright? Is this your full position? And when did you come to this position? Was it before after going into IP law?Stephan:About the same time I was a, I was a libertarian and college and in law school, but I was always unsatisfied with the arguments for IP that I had heard by Ayn Rand and others, I assumed it was a legitimate type of property right because it was in the Constitution, and it's part of so-called capitalism, and everyone was in favor of it.But their arguments didn't make sense to me, because, you know, most of the arguments were either well, they're either utilitarian or incentive based, or they're kind of a deontological, or principle based, like have a natural rights argument. And the natural rights argument just makes no sense because the patent and copyright expire after a certain number of years, which, which is not how other property rights work.So it seems to me like if you're trying to do a natural rights argument, which Ayn Rand did, and then you say, but that copyright should expire in 100 years, and patent should expire in 17 years. It's weird that you just have this arbitrary number, which, of course, the government would have to make up and they have no basis for it. And if you do a utilitarian argument, then I just don't think that you never hear any evidence, you just hear anecdotes and the same old arguments, so I was dissatisfied with it.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 420.From the recently-concluded Seventeenth Annual (2023) Meeting of the PFS, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 24, 2023). The slide presentation is streamed below (ppt). Video is also below.Also podcast as Property and Freedom Podcast PFP265; see also the panel discussion later in the day (video below).Kinsella talk:https://youtu.be/QEmRgapffNQPanel discussion:https://youtu.be/aEryCGV2oWUSlides:Notes from the slides:Stephan KinsellaC4SIF.org • StephanKinsella.com@nskinsellaProperty and Freedom Society2023 Annual MeetingBodrum, TurkeySeptember 24, 2023Overview► Spoken about intellectual property (IP) before here (in 2010 and 2015), but today I’d like to talk about how I came to my current views§ And how figuring this out required coming to a deeper understanding and more clarity about the foundation and nature of rights, and property rights, in general► I came to the conclusion years ago that all IP law—patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, and others—are completely illegitimate and should all be abolished► I started publishing articles on various aspects of libertarian theory in the early 1990s—rights and punishment theory, inalienability, legislation, and so onAgainst IP► In 2001 I published “Against Intellectual Property” in the Journal of Libertarian Studies.§ Original title: “The Legitimacy of Intellectual Property”§ Hoppe suggested I change it, just like he suggested the title of today’s talk► The article was controversial and influential, so I became well known in libertarian circles as being “the IP guy”§ Even though it’s not my only area of research§ E.g., Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2023) [LFFS]IP ManHow I got here► Libertarian since high school, initially influenced by Ayn Rand► Never satisfied with her case for patent and copyright► Initially practiced oil and gas law (1992) but decided to switch to patent law (1994)► Around the same time I was learning patent and IP law as a lawyer, I tried to come up with a better argument for IP► Finally I came to my current IP beliefs§ I was trying to justify the unjustifiable► Heavily influenced by the work of Hoppe (on scarcity and property), and Tom Palmer & Wendy McElroy (on IP)§ Hoppe was instinctively against IP from the beginning► Because I understood IP law very well, I put together what I had learned and published “Against Intellectual Property,” and many articles sinceHow I got here► I kept encountering different objections to my basic argument, so developed further arguments to explain their errors► Summarized in “Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward,” in LFFS► Sorting out the basic case against IP and responding to various objections required rethinking and clarifying other aspects of libertarian theory, namely the nature and purpose of property rights, contract theory, and so on► Figuring out IP and finding ways to explain it to others improved my understanding of other areas of libertarian theory► I’ve lost track of how many people have written me or told me that my IP work opened their eyes. That’s gratifying for a writer.§ See “My IP Odyssey”Absurd Arguments for IP► “Thank goodness the Swiss did have a Patent Office. That is where Albert Einstein worked and during his time as a patent examiner came up with his theory of relativity.” —Patent attorney Gene Quinn► “It is true that other means exist for creative people to profit from their effort. In the case of copyright, authors can charge fees for reading their works to paying audiences. Charles Dickens did this, but his heavy schedule of public performances in the United States, where his works were not protected by copyright, arguably contributed to his untimely death.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 419.This my Soho Forum debate held Aug. 21, 2023, in Manhattan, against Corey DeAngelis, of the American Federation for Children, moderated by Gene Epstein (ReasonTV article). I defended the resolution "Today’s school-choice movement in the U.S. is worthy of support by libertarians…" (taking the negative). Oxford debate rules applied which meant that whoever changed the most minds won. My side went from about 10 to 23 percentage points, gaining about 13; Corey went from about 45 to 64%, gaining about 19, so he won. I was pleased that we had an informative and civil debate about an important issue. (This is my second Soho debate; the first was KOL364 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Richard Epstein: Patent and Copyright Law Should Be Abolished.) My discussion notes are appended below.ResultsToday's school-choice movement in the U.S. is worthy of support by libertarians. Pre Post ChangeYes 44.90% 64.29% 19.39%No 10.20% 23.47% 13.27%Undecided 44.90% 12.24% -32.65% https://www.youtube.com/live/xZF-lT_1pag?si=nJVtVVz6FKsQ4wjvRelated: Comments on the Youtube livestream Various comments on twitter: here, here, here, here. Rose City Catholics Fight for LGBTQ Rights—and Start a War With Portland’s Archbishop (July 5, 2023) Educational Scholarship Accounts Lew Rockwell, Education and the Election William Anderson, The Trouble with Vouchers Jacob Hornberger, “School Vouchers Are Anti-Libertarian,” Hornberger’s Blog (Future of Freedom Foundation) (July 5, 2022) ———, “More on Anti-Libertarian School Vouchers,” Hornberger’s Blog (Future of Freedom Foundation) (July 6, 2022) Bob Murphy Show ep 105: Corey DeAngelis Makes the Case for School Choice Jacob Hornberger Makes the Case AGAINST School Vouchers (with Bob Murphy — Bob Murphy show ep. 248) Tom Woods Show: Ep. 2325 Corey DeAngelis and Connor Boyack: The State’s Schools Are Beyond Repair Tom Woods Show: Ep. 2211 Corey DeAngelis on the School Choice Movement KOL112 | Jack Criss Interview on the Voucher System (1989) Kinsella, “Negates freedom of choice,” Letter to the Editor, The Morning Advocate (Dec. 21, 1988), and related correspondence related to the voucher system and school choice, 1988–89 (Note: Written in a more Randian “Objectivist” phase, and before I came to oppose voucher systems.)DISCUSSION NOTESResolved: Today’s school-choice movement in the U.S. is worthy of support by libertariansA Soho Forum DebateCorey DeAngelis vs. Stephan KinsellaAug 21, 2023The Sheen Center, 18 Bleecker Street, New York, NY 10012MAIN PRESENTATION – NOTES[15 MIN] So there are many ways to explain why intellectual property is illegitimate Oh wait, that’s the wrong debate Resolved: Today’s school-choice movement in the U.S. is worthy of support by libertarians. To answer this question, we need to understand what libertarians should support, and what “Today’s school-choice movement” is Libertarianism is a political philosophy that believes in individual rights to self-ownership and to private property ownership. In short, we oppose “aggression” So libertarians oppose a host of state laws and policies since they themselves commit aggression Such as taxation, war, the drug war, the central bank, and intellectual property (see, IP keeps coming up) Another thing almost all libertarians oppose is public education, more properly named government schools, or state schools, or educational welfare Why do we oppose public education? The three C’s: Compulsory attendance laws; Compulsory financing (by property taxes); government Control over the curriculum The first two are unjust because they involve aggression The third is only possible because of the first two
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 418.
This is a followup to KOL414 | Corporations, Limited Liability, and the Title Transfer Theory of Contract, with Jeff Barr: Part I. See that episode for more information and notes.
In Part III, we need to talk about corporations. For more on that, see Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation.
https://youtu.be/5-Zvt59UlSk
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 417.
Part 3 of my video commentary on Larken Rose's recent comments on IP. For more information, see the description and links at KOL415: Commentary on Larken Rose, “IP: The Wrong Question”: Part 1.
https://youtu.be/Q6dVF-DP-mY
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 416.
Part 2 of my video commentary on Larken Rose's recent comments on IP. For more information, see the description and links at KOL415: Commentary on Larken Rose, “IP: The Wrong Question”: Part 1.
https://youtu.be/3W7ZSkzjOtQ
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 415.
Last year Larken Rose and I appeared on Patrick Smith's Disenthrall show, (( See KOL389 | Disenthrall, with Patrick Smith and Larken Rose: The Morality of Copyright “Piracy”. )) after Rose had posted some videos criticizing libertarians who pirated the HBO show "The Anarchists" as "poopheads," (( See "Pirating" Poopheads. )) even though he technically opposes IP. Or claims to. According to Rose, you should "throwing a couple dollars towards HBO" or something, to avoid being a poophead. He granted that someone pirating an already-leaked video file is not committing aggression (they have no contract with the creator), but they are a "jerk." Or "poop head." After all, the "creator" of the "content" put his "labor" into it and didn't "want it" to be pirated. And his "business model" depends on people "not pirating it." (( See KOL037 | Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory. ))
https://youtu.be/Gt3eZBrXcyE
Or something. So you are a "poophead" if you mess up their unrealistic business model.
In response, I pointed out that if your goal is to produce content—audio, videos, books, etc.—to promote liberty, then you are a "jerk" if you try to paywall it and make it hard for people to access, since you are limiting your content to only rich westerners. Larken was alarmed by this observation and called me a commie, even though I never said you don't have a right to erect a paywall; only that, if you can say someone engaged in the peaceful behavior of "piracy" (( Itself a dishonest, loaded term. See Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft” and “piracy”. )) is a "jerk," then I can say someone who is pretending to be engaged in trying to spread the ideas of liberty is intentionally blocking people from seeing it, they are also subject to criticism.
This apparently blew his mind. When I challenged him, he literally conceded that poor Africans who pirate a video, even if they could never afford to pay for it, are being "jerks." (Listen from around 28 to 31 minutes.) Unbelievable.
Well now he's back on this theme. Apparently he's involved in some libertarian film Jones Plantation, what appears to be a low-budget libertarian film along the lines of J. Neil Schulman's Alongside Night or the Atlas Shrugged trilogy; let's hope it's better than those (which were both terrible; see this hilarious evisceration of Alongside Night, which seems to have gotten more views than the movie itself). (I intend to buy a copy—yes, buy a copy—and watch it later.) (Pettifogging, well akshually alert: it's not really "buying" a "copy" in a (libertarian) legal sense, since you can't own information; but it's paying a price to get access to a file download. See "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa—A Dissection," in my forthcoming Legal Foundations of a Free Society—which, yes, will be made available free online; no paywalls, baby.)
[Update: as I tweeted, I bought a copy and watched it—and it's surprisingly good! Not the Alongside Night-style disaster I was expecting.]
I did this response video to elaborate some aspects of IP and libertarian theory that many people are confused about. My video response took longer than expected so I broke this into three parts. Parts 2 and 3 to follow.
Update: See also Patrick Smith's Disenthrall episode commenting on this matter and also on Eric July's use of DMCA takedowns regarding images from his comics appearing on Twitter, etc.
https://youtu.be/8HIoVU3n-bU
And one more thing. As I wrote to some friends: Another point just occurred to me, which I forgot to mention in my 150-minute screed. It is this. Larken says he's against copyright and that he would never enforce it, right? So in the movie, does he have a copyright notice, or not? Does he have a statement saying "I don't believe in copyright so would never sue pirates, but I'm not gonna make it easy for you—I'm pay...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 414.
Regarding this post, Libertarian Answer Man: Breach of Contract, Binding Obligations, and Impossibility, my old and longtime buddy Jeff Barr, a brilliant attorney and legal scholar and fellow Hoppean-Rothbardian (Jeff studied at UNLV under Rothbard and Hoppe), (( See Murray Rothbard as a Teacher: The UNLV Years—A Panel with Rothbard’s Former Students (AERC 2023). )) discussed these issues in further depth today.
https://youtu.be/1jtDoShqnmI
Jeff and I, it turns out, to my surprise (given past discussions), agree mostly on corporate limited liability, (( See my post Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation. )) and Jeff claims to also agree with the Rothbard-Evers take on contracts—the title-transfer theory. We also agree on terminology, legal issues, possession vs. ownership, and so on. (( Libertarian Answer Man: Self-ownership for slaves and Crusoe; and Yiannopoulos on Accurate Analysis and the term “Property”; Mises distinguishing between juristic and economic categories of “ownership”. )) Yet Jeff still thinks that failure/inability to pay a future debt is "theft," much like Rothbard (and Block) view this as "implicit theft," thus justifying in principle debtor's prison, although Barr thinks the theft is not even implicit; he thinks it's explicit theft. This is the crux of our disagreement.
We talked about some preliminary matters first to make sure we are on the same page, and ended with this disagreement. Now that we've laid the groundwork, and identified some terminology and common ground, we may pick this up in a future discussion. More to come.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 413.
I was asked to make a guest appearance on SwanBitcoin's Café Bitcoin Tuesday today Aug. 1, 2023), where we discussed law versus legislation, the impacts of sound money on social character, and related matters.
It was also posted on their podcast feed (iTunes; Spotify; google) and I include here my segment.
Related:
Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2023)
Chapter 13, Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society
Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter v. the Field Codes (Oct. 14, 2009) Classificationism, Legislation, Copyright, C4SIF (Oct. 25, 2011)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 412.As noted in KOL409 (Part 1: Patent Law) and KOL411 (Part 2: Copyright Law), although I’ve done dozens of speeches and interviews over the past 20 or so years on libertarian aspects of intellectual property, or IP, that is, on IP policy, I’ve never done any in depth lectures for libertarians on IP law itself. In KOL409, I did a brief overview of various types of IP law, and then focused on the patent law and patent application process itself. KOL411 was a tutorial on copyright law.This episode covers other types of IP, including trademark and trade secret, and argues that defamation law should be considered a type of IP law as well. (Recorded May 11, 2023.)The slides I used are streamed below and here (powerpoint) and streamed below.https://youtu.be/DQ0MXbBn264
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 411.As noted in KOL409 (Part 1: Patent Law), although I've done dozens of speeches and interviews over the past 20 or so years on libertarian aspects of intellectual property, or IP, that is, on IP policy, I've never done any in depth lectures for libertarians on IP law itself. In KOL409, I did a brief overview of various types of IP law, and then focused on the patent law and patent application process itself.This episode provides a tutorial on copyright law. (Recorded Thursday, April 27, 2023.)The slides I used are streamed below and here (.pptx) and streamed below.https://youtu.be/1yziV15ZGso
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 410.This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast, Ep. 6 (WiM303) (Youtube channel). This is Ep. 6 of the “Stephan Kinsella Series” (released April 21, 2023).From Robert’s Episode notes:EPISODE SUMMARYStephan Kinsella joins me to continue our discussion about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. We discuss the impact of incentive schemes on productivity, the fake communism of the USSR, modern-day slavery, and why Bitcoin is the ultimate solution to centralization.EPISODE NOTESStephan Kinsella joins me to continue our discussion about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. We discuss the impact of incentive schemes on productivity, the fake communism of the USSR, modern-day slavery, and why Bitcoin is the ultimate solution to centralization.// OUTLINE //00:00:00 - Coming up00:01:25 - Intro00:02:59 - Helping Lightning Startups with In Wolf's Clothing00:03:45 - A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism by Hans-Hermann Hoppe00:03:59 - Historical Examples of Capitalist vs. Socialist Incentives00:08:05 - The Fake Communism of the USSR00:09:56 - The Impact of Incentive Schemes on Productivity00:15:33 - Property Rights are the Key Incentives of a Productive Economy00:19:42 - How Political Risk Influences Investments and Productivity00:22:57 - Pros and Cons of International Treaties00:26:02 - Bitcoin as a Neutral International Settlement Layer00:28:13 - The Importance of Treaty Obligations and International Law00:30:32 - Secure Your Bitcoin Stash with The iCoin Hardware Wallet00:31:27 - Take Control of Your Healthcare with CrowdHealth00:32:29 - A Bitcoin Wallet with Privacy Built-In: Wasabi Wallet00:33:22 - Public vs. Private Means of Production00:36:04 - Private Slavery vs. Public Slavery00:38:48 - Modern-Day Slavery00:44:03 - How to Remove the Shackles of Slavery00:48:47 - The Natural Law vs. The Fake Law00:51:46 - Every Law Should Have an Expiration Date00:53:48 - A Chance to Win Discounted Tickets to the Bitcoin 2023 Conference and 10M SATS00:54:43 - Hold Bitcoin in the Most Secure Custody Model with Casa00:55:31 - Can We Return to the Common Law?00:57:51 - The Case Against Democracy00:58:54 - How did the U.S. Shift from a Constitutional Republic to a Democracy01:06:56 - A Movement towards Centralization and Back to Decentralization01:12:00 - The Case of The Abortion Law in the U.S.01:13:40 - The Role of the Federal Reserve in Centralization01:20:22 - Where to Find Stephan's Work
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 409.It occurred to me recently that although I've done dozens of speeches and interviews over the past 20 or so years on libertarian aspects of intellectual property, or IP, that is, on IP policy, I've never done any in depth lectures for libertarians on IP law itself. Today's discussion did a brief overview of various types of IP law, and then focused on the patent law and patent application process itself. It was followed with Q&A at the end. I plan to do followup episodes focusing on copyright and perhaps some other areas.The slides I used are streamed below and here (.pptx). I also used the following documents in my talk: sample patent application; sample patent prosecution history (USPTO); Sample issued patent 10054762; Apple design patent for touchscreen device with rounded corners; sample red ribbon copy.https://youtu.be/Qrz55dB40TQ
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 408.This is my appearance on The Soul of Enterprise, Episode 432, with hosts Ed Kless and Greg Tirico. Recorded Friday, March 24, 2023. Their shownotes are below.Ron and Ed recently welcomed patent attorney and advocate for abolishing intellectual property, Stephan Kinsella to the show. We explored what is (and is not) intellectual property and then had a conversation about why Stephan thinks these forms of property should not exist and why the world would be better if they did not....Use these notes to follow along with the show:Segment one: Ron first heard Stephan Kinsella on the Tom Woods show, episode 2145. Link is here: https://tomwoods.com/ep-2145-does-intellectual-property-exist/ Stephan started out of law school in a big law firm. He has been a solo practitioner for the last 8-10 years but he’s “pretty much” retired now :) Stephan published the original article about 20 years ago, “Against Intellectual Property” and here is a new, more general approach to the same article: https://c4sif.org/2022/05/against-intellectual-property-after-twenty-years-looking-back-and-looking-forward/ Everyone believes in property rights BUT property rights in any non-Libertarian system is summarized as, “You own your own stuff unless the government says otherwise.” “Wealth is the subjective appraisal of things you own” —Stephan Kinsella Stephan referenced the Sweat of the Brow Doctrine earlier today on the show. Here’s a good starting point for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_browSegment two: While working in Big Law, Stephan “billed every tenth of an hour every 6 minutes.” This was referred to internally in the firm as a shizzle. Stephan has a great description of contracts on the show today. Contracts are all about communication by the owner as to whether they will or will not allow other people to use their resources (either temporarily or permanently). The 4 main categories of IP in the United States are: patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secrets. Stephan goes into detail about this during segment two of the show. In theory, patents are effectively monopoly control for 20 years that allows you to charge monopoly prices. There is no evidence that patents induce innovation whatsoever. Patents kill. LITERALLY. Read more from Stephan Kinsella here: https://mises.org/wire/patents-kill-compulsory-licenses-and-genzymes-life-saving-drugSegment three: “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright” by Stephan Kinsella: https://c4sif.org/2012/10/the-overwhelming-empirical-case-against-patent-and-copyright/ “Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society” by Stephan Kinsella http://libertarianpapers.org/1-law-intellectual-property-stateless-society/ Most libertarians find some areas of libertarian theory more interesting than others. Stephan’s own passion has always been rights theory and related areas, such as the theory of contracts, causation, and punishment. More here: https://mises.org/library/intellectual-property-and-libertarianism Despite the fact that there is widespread copying, the amount of art, design, music, and movies is greater than ever. Piracy/copying is obviously not a hinderance to progress.Segment four: “Attribution have nothing to do with copyright.” —Stephan Kinsella “Plagiarism is simply representing someones work as your own. It has nothing to do with copyright.” —Stephan Kinsella If you buy a fake Rolex for $20, there is no fraud involved. The buyer knows the Rolex is fake. Stephan talked through this during the last segment of our show today. A big THANK YOU to our guest today, Stephan Kinsella. His work is deep and focused on abolishing IP. Check out StephanKinsella.com for links to his work.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 407.This is a short conversation I had with James Cox about copyright and fair use back in 2016 (Feb. 26). We also talk about the safe harbor in the DMCA and the §230 safe harbor in the CDA.https://www.youtube.com/live/wJ2sYz70gc4?feature=share
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 406.This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast, Ep. WiM282 (Youtube channel). This is Ep. 6 of the “Stephan Kinsella Series” (released March 8, 2023).From Robert’s Episode notes:In this episode, Stephan Kinsella joins me for an in-depth conversation about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. We discuss the harmful effects of socialism, how to take proper action in an increasingly uncertain future, and the alternative to socialism.https://youtu.be/EgeLlOFkC1U
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 405.This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast, Ep. WiM235 (Youtube channel). This is Ep. 5 of the “Stephan Kinsella Series” (released Nov. 9, 2022).From Robert’s Episode notes:Stephan Kinsella is an American intellectual property lawyer, author, and deontological anarcho-capitalist. He joins me for an in-depth conversation about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.https://youtu.be/J-eXmuBp-e4
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 404.This was my Webinar presentation at the Freedom Hub Working Group, billed as: "For Over-Drugging of our Bodies and Food, Blame INTELLECTUAL Property" (Wed., Feb. 9, 2023), with co-hosts Jim Grapek and Charles Frohman. It was released under the title "How Humanity’s Progress Has Been Held Back: The Case Against IP (Intellectual Property)."Rumble:!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/uc1wv9"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");Rumble("play", {"video":"v26kgic","div":"rumble_v26kgic"});Youtube:https://youtu.be/hRm-PIxHS1QFrom their Shownotes:Whenever a politician gets pinned down for the lousy health care system we must endure, they spit out some glib demagoguery about expensive drug prices. None of these politicians know why they’re expensive, especially not the cause of INTELLECTUAL property.Property is sacred, of course, but that’s tangible, and a bit intangible when one considers the property rights we have in our minds – not just what we produce on our own. But as far back as the Constitution, protectionist impulses led our Founders to benefit domestic manufactures with a threat to punish competitors if they dared to compete with the recipient of IP welfare, in the form of a patent, copyright or trademark.But each of these examples of corporate welfare got their start through government coercion. Copyrights emanated from worry over the printing press, and how it could print ideas threatening to the government. Patents originated in piracy – a “legal” form given by the Queen to Drake to plunder the world. IP relates to ideas, which cannot be owned.On the flip side, we know how entrepreneurs seemingly offer us the same thing as a preceding company, but in a manner that better suits our tastes and pocketbook. Should that smart business person be denied selling us this improvement, if the previous supplier got some politician to grant an IP monopoly – for a set period of time?IP is political. It’s not a market creation. Pharma uses IP loopholes to retain monopolies on certain disease cures that lead to patients paying thousands of dollars a month to get well. And treaties over the years have sought global enforcement through the World Trade Organization and related bureaucracies. IP needs abolition.LinkedIn announcement:Prescriptions cost an arm and a leg because they're granted immunity from competition (so-called "Intellectual" property (IP)) and withheld from the market until a decade of trials that don't always prove in disease outcomes superiority to natural alternatives. IP lawyer N. Stephan Kinsella says consumers would be better off if entrepreneurs were allowed to apply to ideas improvements now stymied by IP.From their promo materials:For Over-Drugging of our Bodies and Food, Blame INTELLECTUAL PropertyIP is a damaging example of corporate welfareWith Stephan Kinsella, IP lawyerWith co-hosts Jim Grapek, Pavilion founder and award-winning producer/filmmaker; and Charles Frohman, Cash-patient Maker & Health Freedom LobbyistThursday, February 9th12 - 1pm Eastern Time...Whenever a politician gets pinned down for the lousy health care system we must endure, they spit out some glib demagoguery about expensive drug prices. None of these politicians know why they’re expensive, especially not the cause of INTELLECTUAL property.Property is sacred, of course, but that’s tangible, and a bit intangible when one considers the property rights we have in our minds - not just what we produce or own. But as far back as the Constitution,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 403.I was a guest today (Jan. 27, 2023) on The Bitcoin Group #343, on the World Crypto Network (Youtube channel), hosted by Thomas Hunt @MadBitcoins.The other panelists included the CryptoRaptor (Dan Eve); Ben Arc; Martin @generalbyltes. We discussed a variety of topics.https://youtu.be/878nyinOyqQShownotes: Featuring… Joshua Scigala (https://twitter.com/Vaultoro) Dan Eve (https://twitter.com/cryptopoly) Stephan Kinsella (https://twitter.com/NSKinsella) and Thomas Hunt (https://twitter.com/MadBitcoins)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 402.This is my presentation (audio only) at the Austrian Economics Discord Conference: “Inflation, Money, and the State,” Austrian Economics Discord Server (Jan. 7–8, 2023); my talk was "Inflation: Its Causes, Effects, Parallels and Death in a Bitcoin World."Previous appearance: KOL371 | Austrian Economics Discord Conference: Law, Decentralized and Centralized.My talk below:https://youtu.be/Uvi05GJE5LM Final trailer:https://youtu.be/890corLQKFMOriginal trailer:https://youtu.be/AgsocsxhIwsFor last year's, see: “Law: Decentralized and Centralized,” Austrian Economics Discord Conference: “The Enduring Importance of the Austrian School,” Austrian Economics Discord Server (Jan. 8–9, 2022) [KOL371].Related material: Paul Cantor, Hyperinflation and Hyperreality Theodore Dalrymple, "Inflation’s Moral Hazard" Guido Hülsmann, The Ethics of Money Production Adam Fergusson, When Money Dies Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, ch. 1 and TSC, p. 27, on the negative effects of inflation on character Jeffrey Tucker, How the End of Negative Interest Rates Affects Your Life ((Generations over hundreds and thousands of years have been acculturated to believe that good things come to those who wait. Sacrifice some now and you earn greater rewards later. Study hard for the exam and you get an A. Study hard for all exams and you graduate with honors. Graduate with honors and you have a better chance of getting a good-paying job.So on it goes with the whole of life. The more you defer your consumption and indulgence in the here and now, and think about the future, the better off you will be. That presumption is naturally built into the financial system. The yield curve in normal times provides a higher payout in the future than it does in the present. It teaches us to defer consumption, forgoing whatever joy there is in the present, in favor of great reward down the line.Again, in normal times, that means that savers win in the long run. Keep socking money away in the bank rather than taking that extra vacation, give it a few years, and you have a solid nest egg.All of economics is supposed to work this way. The guy alone on the island who wants to catch more fish needs to spend a day or two making a net but in order to afford that time away from scooping up fish as he sees them, he needs to save up food to live on while he constructs his capital goods. )) Kinsella, “Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010), (( Longer version: “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995), p. 132 )) on negative effects of uncertainty (( Negative Effects of UncertaintyLegislation tends to interfere with agreements that courts would otherwise have enforced and thereby makes parties to contracts less certain that the contract will ultimately be enforced. Thus, individuals tend to rely less on contracts, leading them to develop costly alternatives such as structuring companies, transactions, or production processes differently than they otherwise would have."There is much more certainty in a decentralized legal system than in a centralized, legislation-based system."Another pernicious effect of the increased uncertainty in legislation-based systems is the increase of overall time preference. Individuals invariably demonstrate a preference for earlier goods over later goods, all things being equal. When time preferences are lower, individuals are more willing to forgo immediate benefits such as consumption, and invest their time and capital in more indirect (i.e., more roundabout, lengthier) production processes, which yield more or better goods for consumption or for further production. Any artificial raising of the general time-preference rate thus tends to impoverish society by pushing us away from production and long-term investments. Yet increased uncertainty,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 401.I appeared on a Twitter Spaces discussion Jan. 12, 2023 for Sazmining, for the topic "Bitcoin & Property Rights," with Kent Halliburton and Logan Chipkin. A variety of questions were fielded. A synopsis and transcript are here, and re-pixeled below.Synopsis:Lawyer and libertarian theorist Stephan Kinsella joins Logan Chipkin and Kent Halliburton to discuss Bitcoin from a property rights perspective. If Bitcoin is not physical, how can anyone own it, if at all?Transcript:Kent Halliburton (00:06:31):Sure. Uh, thank you Logan, for the opportunity. You're gonna have to do a little intro for yourself as well. You do an excellent job hosting these spaces, but I operate as the president and COO here at SAS Mining, which means I, uh, manage all the internal affairs. Uh, my first career was in solar, rooftop solar. And, uh, very excited for this conversation to learn from you, Stefan. Um, definitely libertarianism has, uh, has gotten to be in my crosshairs, uh, the further I've gone down my, uh, myBitcoin journey here. But, um, yeah, been, I think you are the first, uh, first Austria, Austria, libertarian, uh, that I've spoken to, and, uh, came to learn a lot from you.Stephan Kinsella (00:07:16):Well, glad to, uh, meet you and, uh,prepare to have your mind blownLogan Chipkin (00:07:21):
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 400.I appeared tonight (Dec. 7, 2022) on the LP Mises Caucus’s Ask an Austrian podcast and youtube channel, episode 11, at the request of Liam McCollum. I fielded as many questions as I could in the allotted time. The questions given to me ahead of the session are posted below, most of which I addressed.https://youtu.be/lcDVXIg_0LwQuestions:Karson Rosander - can you explain the history of the term “intellectual property” and how it’s evolved? How can I use that to explain it’s not like traditional property?Karson Rosander - what have you found to be the best way to sell your position on IP to conservatives?Harrison - Do you think the free market could develop some sort of protection for IP? Do you think blockchain might be a free market solution to IP?Michael - what do you think about Rothbard’s argument for natural law in ethics of liberty?Aaron Harris - what would be the most significant changes in society if IP laws were abolished? Is there a particular way they should be phased out?Chris Forrest - Do you think it's fair to say that public property (such as roads, libraries etc.) is rightfully owned by the taxpayer, as restitution for the aggression committed against them by the state as well as the companies that build these things, seeing as they're guilty of possession of stolen goods (tax money)?Zach Szklarz - why deontological liberty? Are consequentialist arguments wrong, or just not as good as natural-rights arguments? Is it fair to use consequentialist arguments to back up your ideas based on deontological libertarianism? (maybe explain deontological or consequentialist for the rest of the listeners)Adam Thuen - How did IP get established in the US, what was the intent in its adoption and how has it been corrupted? Given the acceleration of tech and its ability to drastically change quality of life, why haven’t timeframes for patents and copyrights been reduced?Adam Thuen - Is there an economic and legal case to abolish these frameworks? Where is the line between a chef trying to protect family recipes and an entrepreneurial person trying to make their way by providing a good or service? How does this play with our globs system? We all know China and other countries engage in corporate espionage (as well as many American companies)Liam - Are you in favor of decentralization on principle or is something like the incorporation doctrine legitimate? Do you think we should oppose centralization in all cases, even if it’s in the name of liberty? Are there any scenarios where a more centralized power should check a lower power?Brady - What is polycentric law? Are you in favor of it?Liam - What would a libertarian court system look like? Is a common-law system more consistent with libertarianism than the current centralized system with the US Supreme Court?Riley Wipf - What is the best way to use Austrian Economics in entry-level business to help create value?Dan Zembiak - The US is over $30 trillion dollars in debt. Who exactly is that debt owed to?Alex Dillard - Do you think it is viable for libertarians to work in coalitions with populist forces (such as independent leftists like Jimmy Dore, as well as paleoconservative and populist conservative forces)? Has the previous LP leadership tried to appeal too much to centrist forces?Joe - are you pessimistic in light of recent foreign policy developments?Sachin Patil - Dear Sir, How would a country (say like US) transform from democracy to Anarcho capitalism? Suppose the entire Government resigns. What then? Wouldn't the vaccum crested be filled by mafia? Or even a foreign country?Sachin Patil - How would defence, Police & Judiciary be privatised? How can we make the transformation from democracy to Anarcho Capitalism?Kareem Maize - What is the ricardian law of association in your own words and how does that relate to social...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 399.
This is my appearance on the CryptoVoices podcast, Episode 138, interviewed by host Matthew Mežinskis.
Shownotes: Matthew interviews Stephan Kinsella, lawyer and author, and anti-IP advocate.
Stephan covers a lot of ground on how to increase liberalism and reduce war, through the lens of the unjust and terrible war being waged by Russia in Ukraine.
Though there are a variety of views on NATO, nukes, and strategies for minimizing this and all state wars, the focus on this show is to philosophize and center our arguments on freedom and liberalism and private property, with the important caveat that we live in 2022, not in an anarcho-capitalistic world.
Listen on to learn more.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 398.
This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast, Ep. WiM229 (Youtube channel). This is Ep. 3 of the “Stephan Kinsella Series” (released Oct. 26, 2022). For Ep. 1, see KOL391 | Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, Ep. 1 with Robert Breedlove, of the “What is Money” Show. For Ep. 2, see KOL394 | The Nature of Property, Ep. 2 (WiM216) with Robert Breedlove, of the “What is Money” Show.
From Robert’s Episode notes: “Stephan Kinsella is an American intellectual property lawyer, author, and deontological anarcho-capitalist. He joins me for an in-depth conversation about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.”
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/uduhaHN5QAE
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 397.
I was a guest last night (Oct. 25, 2022) on the Libertarian Podcast Review ... podcast, ep. 70, with hosts Tyler Janke and Garbage Mane Andy. We discussed... well... Hoppe.
They're like—why are you always the one called on to defend Hoppe? I'm thinking—I dunno, you tell me.
Related links:
Magness on Hoppe; the Kochtopus and the Mises Caucus "Libertarian" Lightweight and "Minarchist" (read: mini-statist) Jacob Hornberger on Defamation and Alex Jones Palmer Lies about Involuntary Unemployment–yet again! ha ha ha Palmer on Coase and Hoppe
https://youtu.be/NoF_4b6gTmA
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 396.
From Decentralized Revolution ep. 87 with Aaron Harris. From the Youtube Shownotes: Stephan Kinsella shares his views on libertarian attacks on Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Hoppe’s actual positions on immigration and monarchy, and the differences between libertarian universalism and decentralization. We discuss my article Magness on Hoppe; the Kochtopus and the Mises Caucus.
https://youtu.be/KLnXUjsitrM
Further shownotes:
Hans-Hermann Hoppe at the Mises Institute “My Dream Is of a Europe Which Consists of 1,000 Liechtensteins” by Hans-Hermann Hoppe Phillip W. Magness at the American Institute for Economic Research “Against the Zeitgeist” by Jeff Deist “The Kochtopus vs. Murray N. Rothbard” by David Gordon “Why the Koch Brothers Went After Murray Rothbard” by David Gordon Open Borders Conference 2022 – Keynote speech by Bryan Caplan TakeHumanAction.com
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 395.
From the recently-concluded Sixteenth Annual (2022) Meeting of the PFS, Bodrum, Turkey (Sept. 17, 2022). This is the audio from my iPhone. Professionally-produced audio and video will be released in a few weeks. The slide presentation is also streamed below (ppt).
For others, see the PFS YouTube channel, including the PFS 2022 YouTube Playlist (forthcoming).
Related:
"Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward," the section "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership" The “If you own something, that implies that you can sell it; if you sell something, that implies you must own it first” Fallacies Libertarian Answer Man: Self-ownership for slaves and Crusoe; and Yiannopoulos on Accurate Analysis and the term “Property”; Mises distinguishing between juristic and economic categories of “ownership” The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ KOL044 | “Correcting some Common Libertarian Misconceptions” (PFS 2011) KOL049 | “Libertarian Controversies Lecture 5” (Mises Academy, 2011) KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery and Inalienability Thoughts on Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery, Alienability vs. Inalienability, Property and Contract, Rothbard and Evers “On Conflictability and Conflictable Resources” How We Come To Own Ourselves Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability Cordato and Kirzner on Intellectual Property On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse Hoppe, “A Note on Preference and Indifference in Economic Analysis” and “Further Notes on Preference and Indifference: Rejoinder to Block,” both in The Great Fiction
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 394.
This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast, Ep. WiM216 (Youtube channel). This is Ep. 2 of the "Stephan Kinsella Series." For Ep. 1, see KOL391 | Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, Ep. 1 with Robert Breedlove, of the “What is Money” Show.
From Robert’s Episode notes: “Stephan Kinsella is an American intellectual property lawyer, author, and deontological anarcho-capitalist. He joins me for an in-depth conversation about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.”
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/B2a5MnWb0RU
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 393.
After a Twitter spat with Las Vegas Libertarian about IP (see here and here), I offered to have a discussion with him. I didn't make much headway, but it was a fun, robust discussion. Oh well. I tried.
Related:
“The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism,” Mises Daily (July 28, 2010) Yet another Randian recants on IP (Feb. 1, 2012) An Objectivist Recants on IP (Dec. 4, 2009) Letter from a UK Grad Student Does Cato’s New Objectivist CEO John Allison Presage Retrogression on IP? Timothy Sandefur, “A Critique of Ayn Rand’s Theory of Intellectual Property Rights,” Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 9, no. 1 (Fall 2007): 139–61 Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward
https://youtu.be/k7ebUpmAWHc
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 392.
I was asked to make a guest appearance on SwanBitcoin's Café Bitcoin Tuesday today, with host Alex, where we discussed ownership of bitcoin, property rights, bitcoin maximalism, money vs. language, bitcoin and free speech, and related matters.
It was also posted on their podcast feed (iTunes; Spotify; google) and I include here my segment.
Related:
KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender (Crypto-Currency Conference, Atlanta, 2013) Transcript: “You Don’t Own Bitcoin—Property Rights, Praxeology and the Foundations of Private Law,” with Max Hillebrand (May 23, 2021) KOL386 | Toward Anarchy with Michael Storm: IP, Bitcoin, NFTs, Digital Ownership KOL383 | Bitcoin at PorcFest: Patent Trolls, Bitcoin Ownership, the Mises Caucus and the Reno Reset Libertarian Answer Man: Self-ownership for slaves and Crusoe; and Yiannopoulos on Accurate Analysis and the term “Property”; Mises distinguishing between juristic and economic categories of “ownership”
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 390.
In the second half of a discussion on Disenthrall (for Part I, see KOL389 | Disenthrall: With Patrick Smith and Larken Rose the Morality of Copyright “Piracy”), host Patrick Smith and I discussed recent changes to the Libertarian Party Platform related to aggression and property rights; see Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform. We also touched on other issues like abandonment of property.
Youtube of show:
https://youtu.be/5c4-nO40IGo
Odysee version of entire show:
Related:
Property Title Records and Insurance in a Free Society, Mises Blog (Dec. 4, 2010) Homesteading, Abandonment, and Unowned Land in the Civil Law (Mises Blog, 2009) Further Thoughts on Abandonment and Alienability in Contract Theory: Discussions with Jay Lakner Left-Libertarians on Rothbardian Abandonment
A Critique of Mutualist Occupancy
How To Think About Property (2019) Libertarian Answer Man: Abandoning Property on your curb for the trash man: who owns what?
Some of my further thoughts that I sent Patrick via DM after the show (lightly edited):
More thoughts re abandonment.
I think if you pick up a stick in the forest and use it for an hour then discard it, it's now unowned again. The reason is you didn't take the steps necessary to establish a publicly visible (objective, observable; intersubjectively ascertainable) link. As far as others are concerned, it's unowned--maybe they don't know it was ever owned. Hell, when you pick it up and use it, you don't know if someone had used it previously and then abandoned it. So in your own use of an unowned thing, you yourself make assumptions about its current unowned status. Can you complain if others make assumptions about the resource if you skedaddle?
Imagine someone who sells you a car and then later tries to get the car back, by saying "well I was just joking or pretending when I said you could have it". We would not let him do that, because we would look at what his words and behavior actually reasonably and objectively communicated, right?
Likewise, suppose some guy owns a little lot and never develops it, and he leaves town, leaving behind a sign saying "I hereby abandon this; finders' keepers" and he puts a notice to that effect in the paper. Someone else then homesteads it and builds a home on it. A year later the guy comes back and says he wants his land back, that he was "only joking."
Another example: if A owns some land and has no heirs, and he dies, then it's now unowned and up for grabs. But how do we know he died? What if he goes off to fight a war and it's uncertain, and we hear reliable reports he was killed. So eventually he's declared dead and someone homesteads the land. But then 20 years later he shows up and claims it. Why did he wait so long?
One more example: A owns it and has no heirs, and he fakes his own death (for his own reasons--maybe to torment an ex-wife or a parent or to escape his enemies). So everyone assumes he's dead, and someone else, B, homesteads the land. 15 years later A shows up and wants his land back. He says he never died, he only faked it. Now as between A and B, who has the better claim? Did A abandon it, or not, by his act of faking his death, by his allowing people to believe this and act in reliance on it?
Let me know how you think about these cases. If you tend to agree with me, then I think you'll see where I'm going and how it's relevant for acquisitive prescription. If you neglect your property for too long, and others are uncertain or misled, and start to use it, and you never show up to correct their misimpression, or to object to their use, you can see that over time, people would start to disregard your claim to reclaim your original title.
One more thing: you mentioned title insurance. I've written about that briefly here --Property Title Records and Insurance in a Free Society.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 389.
I appeared on Patrick Smith's show Disenthrall last night (July 15, 2022), along with Larken Rose, to discuss the morality of piracy of copyrighted content. Larken had posted a video earlier the same day (see below) regarding the HBO series The Anarchists, where he criticized the libertarians who were gleefully pirating the show (downloading unauthorized copies to watch for free) instead of subscribing to HBO to watch it legally. Larken is against copyright but still thinks it's wrong for people to "freeload" like this--he says it's a "poophead" thing todo. I disagree that it's wrong and mentioned this in a series of Tweets.
At one point I suggested that not only is piracy and downloading not wrong, but you could make a case that a libertarian activist author who paywalls his books and doens't put a free PDF of it online is being a jerk, and Larken said something like "I take back my previous comment that you are not a commie!" But when I complimented Keith Knight for releasing his recent book online, (( Keith Knight, ed., The Voluntaryist Handbook: A Collection of Essays, Excerpts, and Quotes (2022; pdf). )) and said that I release all my work online and CC0, Larken sheepishly said he also puts most or a lot of his work online or without copyright. So does that mean he's also "a commie"?
After Larken left, Patrick and I discussed another issue, so I am breaking it apart into two segments. This episode includes only the initial discussion about piracy with Larken and Patrick.
Larken Rose's books include The Most Dangerous Superstition; see his Amazon author page; some of his books are also available online at z-lib dot org, or https://usa1lib dot vip/s/larken%20rose.
Larken Rose video re Piracy:
https://youtu.be/gGhT4Ip40RU
Youtube of show:
https://youtu.be/5c4-nO40IGo
Odysee version of show:
From a Facebook post:
From Larken:
This description is pretty funny:
"At one point I suggested that not only is piracy and downloading not wrong, but you could make a case that a libertarian activist author who paywalls his books and doens’t put a free PDF of it online is being a jerk, and Larken said something like “I take back my previous comment that you are not a commie!” But when I complimented Keith Knight for releasing his recent book online,1 and said that I release all my work online and CC0, Larken sheepishly said he also puts most or a lot of his work online or without copyright. So does that mean he’s also “a commie”?"
"Sheepishly"? Um, okay. But more importantly, someone choosing to give away the fruits of their OWN efforts--which you, me, Keith, and others have all done a lot of--is not the same as implying that someone ELSE has an obligation to give away for free the fruits of HIS efforts, and that he's a jerk if he doesn't. Yeah, that's kinda entitlement-mentality commie-think. My reply:
I admire my fellow libertarians, like you, who devote their time and energy and resources to promoting liberty. When someone writes a book that helps to promote or explain the ideas of liberty, I appreciate and admire that. When they make if easily available online in PDF or whatever form, so that more people can easily access it, instead of paywalling it, I admire them for doing that. When you intentionally make it hard for people to get exposed to what you consider to be important ideas about liberty, I think that's shitty. This opinion is similar to your own apparently merely æsthetic preference that people not download free information. I prefer that libertarian authors put a PDF online so that poorer people and third worlders can easily access it. I assure you this personal preference does not imply anything remotely connected to socialism or communism, and to suggest so is ridiculous. Some other comments:
Sid Smith
To be fair, Larken has made a career and online presence by copying and regurgitating ideas from othe...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 388.
I was a guest on Cantus Firmus, with host Cody Cook (episode released July 8, 2022; recorded July 7, 2022) . We discussed IP etc. From his shownotes: Stephan Kinsella was my guest to talk about “intellectual property,” the concept that an individual’s ideas belong to them and should be protected from free use by others through law. Stephan is a patent attorney and libertarian writer in Houston whose book Against Intellectual Property is the seminal writing on this subject. We discussed why intellectual property is not really property, why it places an undue burden on society, and how it inhibits the free exchange of culture and ideas. He can be found at www.stephankinsella.com, at the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, and on Twitter @NSKinsella
Resources mentioned in the podcast:
Stephan Kinsella’s Against Intellectual Property – Amazon and Free from the Mises Institute Stephan’s Soho forum debate Abolish Copyrights and Patents? RiP: A Remix Manifesto – Amazon Video and Free on Youtube Richard Stallman’s book Free Software, Free Society
Not discussed in the podcast, but relevant to this discussion, is my own essay Open Source Jesus: A Manifesto for a Liberated Church See also “Libertarians and the Catholic Church on Intellectual Property Laws” (2012) and KOL243 | Libertarian Christians Podcast with Norman Horn: Intellectual Property.
https://youtu.be/SHOSK-i9q2I
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 387.
This is a classic debate on intellectual property between Wendy McElroy and J. Neil Schulman† at the Libertarian Supper Club in Westwood (Los Angeles), California, in 1983. McElroy takes the anti-IP side and Schulman argues for IP. I don't appear in this episode but I thought my listeners might find it of interest.
https://youtu.be/-_Nyaav6Js0
I wrote about this on Mises Daily, as “The Great IP Debate of 1983,” Mises Daily (July 18, 2011), which concerns the then recently-found audio of that debate, which was put up as a Mises podcast and is now also hosted at Mises.org. It's a fascinating listen. As the Mises blurb about it reads, "In this wonderful debate, we find the whole of the theoretical apparatus of the anti-IP case presented with precision and eloquence." This was near the beginning of the modern libertarian anti-IP movement, pioneered by McElroy and Sam Konkin (see references below).
Related (by me unless noted otherwise):
McElroy: “On the Subject of Intellectual Property”: this appears to match at least part of Wendy's initial presentation in the debate Schulman, "My Unfinished 30-Year-Old Debate with Wendy McElroy" McElroy, "Contra Copyright, Again" Classical Liberals and Anarchists on Intellectual Property (discussing LeFevre) The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism KOL208 | Conversation with Schulman about Logorights and Media-Carried Property “Introduction” and chapter “Conversation with Schulman about Logorights and Media-Carried Property” [both available here] in J. Neil Schulman, Origitent: Why Original Content is Property (Steve Heller Publishing, 2018) Libertarian Sci-Fi Authors and Copyright versus Libertarian IP Abolitionists
Replies to Neil Schulman and Neil Smith re IP
Query for Schulman on Patents and Logorights On J. Neil Schulman’s Logorights Kinsella v. Schulman on Logorights and IP Schulman: “If you copy my novel, I’ll kill you” Schulman: Kinsella is “the foremost enemy of property rights” Reply to Schulman on the State, IP, and Carson
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 386.
I was a guest on Toward Anarchy with host Michael Storm on July 3, 2022. His shownotes (Youtube channel): Anarchist, Author, Lawyer, Electrical Engineer, Stephan Kinsella discusses the Economics and Morality of Intellectual Property with me. We'll get into the value, subjective and objective, of Crypto-Currencies, NFTs and other Digital things.
Find out more about Stephan and dive into the large body of work he has from books to audio and video on topics from the law to economics to social issues and of course Intellectual Property at StephanKinsella.com.
Continue your trip down the Kinsella information highway at Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom where you can find a growing collection of work aimed at proving the government impedes innovation and creativity with laws and taxes and regulations and all manner of interventions into our personal and economic lives. Related:
A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 385.
This is an audio version of my article "Goods, Scarce and Nonscarce" (with Jeffrey A. Tucker), Mises Daily (Aug. 25, 2010). Narrated by Bob Reilly.
N.b.: the narrator mispronounces some words, e.g. he pronounces Menger as "Minn-jer" and causally as "casually".
https://youtu.be/jINbQrRq-g0
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 384.
My appearance on Ernie Hancock's show at PorcFest 2022, recorded June 23, 2022. Episode.
Related:
KOL307 | Ernie Hancock Freedom’s Phoenix on IP in the Internet Age KOL272 | Ernie Hancock Freedom’s Phoenix on Reputation Rights, Defamation, IP KOL229 | Ernie Hancock Show: IP Debate with Alan Korwin KOL133 | IP Bonanza on Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock KOL089 | Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock radio: Intellectual Property, L. Neil Smith KOL060 | Guest on Ernest Hancock’s Declare Your Independence radio show: intellectual property and libertarianism (2010)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 383.
I was an impromptu guest at the FreeTalkLive tent at PorcFest 2022 yesterday (June 23, 2022), with hosts Patrick Motorist and Tone Vays, discussing the Open Crypto Foundation, the Reno Reset, and related matters.
Related:
KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019)
https://youtu.be/v1E4i3od_T4?t=1954
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 382.
I was an impromptu guest at the FreeTalkLive tent at PorcFest 2022 today (June 23, 2022), with host Mark Edge (and Aria) discussing corporations and limited liability, and also the recent "Reno Reset" at the Libertarian Party's 2022 Convention in Reno.
Related:
Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 381.
This is my discussion with Eric John on Twitter Spaces, on June 18, 2022, about intellectual property—its genesis, common fallacies and misunderstandings, the labor theory of property, libertarian "creationism," and so on. We discussed ownership of information and touched briefly on ownership of bitcoin.
Related:
Against Intellectual Property (including Selected Supplementary Material) ——, “Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward” KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 380.
Tom Jump, of the TJump Youtube channel, had me on to discuss anarcho-capitalism and related issues. I was not familiar with him or what position he would be coming from; turns out he's a self-professed "centrist liberal" but was very intelligent, and surprisingly civil despite espousing some views completely contrary to libertarianism and my own beliefs.
https://youtu.be/wRAJJC3TleI
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 379.
This is my umpteenth appearance on the Tom Woods show: from Ep. 2145 Does Intellectual Property Exist? From his shownotes: Is it possible that we’ve been snookered into believing in a nonsensical concept? Is it possible to “own” an idea? Stephan Kinsella walks us through copyright, patent, trademarks, and trade secrets from a libertarian perspective, and also considers the utilitarian arguments for intellectual property. https://youtu.be/htD61sX9LkM
Related:
Against Intellectual Property “Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward" Against Intellectual Monopoly, by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine; click here for a PDF A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP “Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright” “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright” “Innovations that Thrive without IP” “Examples of Ways Content Creators Can Profit Without Intellectual Property” Do Business Without Intellectual Property (Liberty.me, 2014) (PDF)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 378.
[Note: I mistakenly posted this as a blog post instead of a podcast entry on March 28, 2022; please see comments on the original post here.]
I had some exchanges with Voice of Reason in the comments section for a Mises.org article on IP a few weeks ago about intellectual property so we decided to have a discussion. Here it is. FWIW. (See the comments section of the Mises.org article titled Why Intellectual Property Isn't Necessary to Reward Innovation.)
If anyone has links to the original thread send them on and I will include them.
https://youtu.be/Rmeuh3L5NqU
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 378.
I had some exchanges with Voice of Reason in the comments section for a Mises.org article on IP a few weeks ago about intellectual property so we decided to have a discussion. Here it is. FWIW. (See the comments section of the Mises.org article titled Why Intellectual Property Isn't Necessary to Reward Innovation.)
If anyone has links to the original thread send them on and I will include them.
https://youtu.be/Rmeuh3L5NqU
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 377.
I appeared last night (March. 15, 2022) on NWJ as we are considering a possible debate between me and David Friedman on the foundations of libertarianism. The original notion suggested was deontology vs. consequentialism but as I was not sure this is appropriate, we had a discussion about this. Along the way we discussed many other topics. Not sure if the debate will take place or makes sense, but this discussion was fun.
https://youtu.be/C8JAZq_QYuo
See Jose's subsequent discussion with David Friedman here. David discusses IP around 28 minutes. Also: David Friedman on Intellectual Property; and David Friedman on the “Problem” of Piracy; David Friedman on Copyright; David Friedman: Current Experiments in Self Publishing.
https://youtu.be/yYzuAPpoj9g
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 376.
This is my appearance on Unorthodox Libertarian Theology, with host Rajat Sirkanungo. We discussed a variety of issues.
My copy:
https://youtu.be/0Qv-ocKUkec
His copy:
https://youtu.be/CqfueRgLNNQ
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 375.
This is my appearance on Ep.55 of Mentally Unscripted. Recorded Feb. 8, 2022; released Feb. 10, 2022.
Transcript below.
https://youtu.be/8SrUo79eiLk
Related links:
Examples of Ways Content Creators Can Profit Without Intellectual Property The Creator-Endorsed Mark as an Alternative to Copyright Do Business Without Intellectual Property (PDF) KOL 037 | Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory Locke, Smith, Marx; the Labor Theory of Property and the Labor Theory of Value; and Rothbard, Gordon, and Intellectual Property Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright Libertarian Answer Man: Self-ownership for slaves and Crusoe; and Yiannopoulos on Accurate Analysis and the term “Property” Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes Where does IP Rank Among the Worst State Laws? Patent vs. Copyright: Which is Worse? On the 3D printing threat to patent law
Copyrighting all the melodies to avoid accidental infringement | Damien Riehl (my comments debunking it on Facebook)
Lost in Space: The Copyright Dilemma Monkey selfie copyright dispute David Koepsell, Who Owns You? The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes (review; blog) Conversation with an author about copyright and publishing in a free society (re JK Rowling and Harry Potter movies) Prohibitions of anti-circumvention technology:
Anti-circumvention (wikipedia) What is DMCA anti-circumvention? EFF Asks Appeals Court to Rule DMCA Anti-Circumvention Provisions Violate First Amendment
From their shownotes: This week, Stefan and Scott welcome Stephan Kinsella to Mentally Unscripted.
Stephan is a brilliant, articulate libertarian legal scholar who explains why the mainstream notion that intellectual property spurs innovation is wrong. He dives in by telling us why IP laws are simply government-issued monopolies that actually impede innovation. He explains why removing IP laws would make us more prosperous. And closes by discussing other innovative ways creators can profit without protectionist laws.
As always, we're building a community around Mentally Unscripted. So, share this episode with your friends and interact with us at MentallyUnscripted.com.
And remember, the conclusion you reach is less important than the process you follow to get there.
Guest Information
Stephan’s Website Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Libertarian Theory and Applications Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom
Top Takeaways
Intellectual Property (IP) is a body of law whose stated purpose is to protect a specific type of private property, such as inventions and creative works but is really a grant of monopoly power by the state. Instead of spurring innovation and creativity, the monopolistic nature of IP laws stifles new creative output. IP laws could be repealed today, and entrepreneurs would fill the void with new, innovative ways to earn money from their creations.
Comments or Questions on this episode? Join the conversation at the Mentally Unscripted Substack. TRANSCRIPT "Transcript: Why IP Laws Destroy Innovation and How Creatives Can Profit Without Them" Stephan Kinsella, Mentally Unscripted (Feb. 10, 2022) 00:00:15
SCOTT GRAYSON: Hi there, everybody. My name is Scott Grayson, and you’re listening to Mentally Unscripted, the podcast where my cohost, Stefan, and I inspire you to think more clearly and have better conversations about the world. When you ride along with us, we’ll take you on a journey that will show you there’s always more than one way to look at an issue. You’ll learn to think critically about what you see and hear and how to challenge the narratives that those in power want you to believe. You won’t always agree with us, but that’s the point: to learn that we can have de...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 374.
This is my appearance on Episode 1 of The Great Fiction Podcast, hosted by PraxBen and JungYin An. Recorded Jan. 3, 2022; released Feb. 4, 2022.
This is the fourth or so podcast for which I was the first guest, the others being KOL078 | Lions of Liberty Podcast Inaugural Episode: Intellectual Property, KOL244 | “YOUR WELCOME” with Michael Malice Ep. 001: Intellectual Property, Prostate Cancer, and KOL347 | This Time I’m Curious Ep. 1: The Libertarian Movement, AI Rights, UFOs, Music, Movies, Alcohol.
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/i5p8wlu2xmQ
Original youtube:
https://youtu.be/-Mq5czGnhHQ
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 373.
This is an audiobook version of my Against Intellectual Property. Narrated by RetroGames HQ. An earlier version is here: KOL008 | Against Intellectual Property (audiobook).
Youtube playlist; first Youtube:
https://youtu.be/JCabAGM-e_s
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 372.
Matthew Sands of the Nation of Sanity project (http://www.nationsofsanity.com/), which aims to promote the Non-Aggression Principle as a universal peace agreement, and I discussed various matters of libertarian legal theory, including the Rothbard-Evers title-transfer theory of contract versus contract as "binding promises" and the problem with the idea of "breach of contract"; and related matters such as burdens and standards of proof; civil vs. criminal law and the unity of the law; punishment, restitution and ostracism, and the like.
(See previous episode with Matthew, KOL362 | California Gold #6, with Matt Sands: Defining Libertarianism, Anarchism and Voluntaryism.)
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/YzMSm9TdDRQ
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 371.
This is my presentation (audio only) at the Austrian Economics Discord Conference: “The Enduring Importance of the Austrian School,” Austrian Economics Discord Server (Jan. 8–9, 2022). My presentation was “Law: Decentralized and Centralized" (Jan. 8, 2022).
Other speakers included:
- Jeff Deist
- Walter Block
- Peter Klein
- Per Bylund
- Patrick Newman
- Jonathan Newman
- Matthew McCaffrey
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/2_w1_9uQc74
Original Youtube
Related links:
Kinsella, “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995) Summary version: “Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010) Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter v. the Field Codes (Oct. 14, 2009) KOL221 | Mises Brasil: State Legislation Versus Law and Liberty KOL368 | Legislation vs. Law, with Robert Breedlove, of the “What is Money” Show KOL199 | Tom Woods Show: The State’s Corruption of Private Law, or We Don’t Need No Legislature 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?”
Further resources:
Is English Common Law Libertarian? (Powerpoint; PDF) 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
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 370.
This is my appearance in an "Ask Me Anything" for the Lib-Right League Discord Server, with host Logan. Recorded Jan. 6, 2022. We discussed a variety of topics.
My youtube:
Their youtube:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 369.
Whereupon I do the rare original episode. In November I debated Richard Epstein in New York, at the Soho Forum, on intellectual property (patent and copyright). My friend Greg Morin (website; Twitter; Mises) accompanied me and we had a great time in NYC. In this episode, Greg and I do a post-mortem about the debate and touch on IP topics I didn't have time to address in the main debate. Some pix below.
Related links:
KOL364 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Richard Epstein: Patent and Copyright Law Should Be Abolished KOL366 | NFTS, Soho Forum Debate, Intellectual Property, Etc. on Repeal the 20th Century
https://youtu.be/1qpB7cvtpL0
Some photos from the NYC trip below:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 368.
This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove's What Is Money podcast, Ep. WiM099 (Youtube channel). We discussed legislation vs. (private) law—Centralized Law vs Decentralized Law, or as Hoppe refers to legislation, "democratic law-making".
From Robert's Episode notes: "Stephan Kinsella joins me to discuss the nature of centralized law legislated by fiat in comparison with decentralized law discovered through the observation of human action across time."
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/msj6ReWhzkk
Youtube outline/time stamps:
00:00:00 “What is Money?” Intro 00:00:08 Exploring the Meaning of Legislative “Law” 00:09:40 Possession is 9/10ths of the Law 00:16:43 Corruption in Law Making & Money Printing 00:20:30 Is Coercion Inherent to Fiat? 00:26:44 Bitcoin Replacing Fiat Standards? 00:30:00 The Basics of Human Action and Property 00:36:17 Is Bitcoin Property? 00:44:25 NYDIG 00:45:34 Does the Nature of Legal Disputes Change Under a Bitcoin Standard? 00:51:42 Custodial Aspects of the Fractional Reserve Banking System [see also my post The Great Fractional Reserve/Freebanking Debate] 00:57:49 Bitcoin Lending & the Threat of Rehypothecation 01:03:25 Does Bitcoin Disincentivize High Risk Human Action 01:08:37 Morality Under a Bitcoin Standard vs a Fiat Standard 01:18:11 Centralized Legislation Contributes to Uncertainty
Related:
Kinsella, “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995) Summary version: “Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010) Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter v. the Field Codes (Oct. 14, 2009) The Great Fractional Reserve/Freebanking Debate (Jan. 29, 2016) Jesus Huerta de Soto's Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, esp. ch. 1 (uses Roman law concepts to properly analyze fractional-reserve banking) KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) Paul Cantor, Hyperinflation and Hyperreality: Thomas Mann in Light of Austrian Economics
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 367.
I appeared on Patrick Smith's Disenthrall channel (Disenthrall Youtube channel) to discuss and rebut—to fisk, really—an article by one "Strangerous Thoughts" from 2010 criticizing my IP abolitionism—or my "intellectual communism," as he called it. The main article is: The economic principles of intellectual property and the fallacies of intellectual communism; see also his related article The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property.
From Patrick's shownotes: I was linked an article calling my position on intellectual property communism. Let's dive in and see if I'm wrong and if we can learn something new with none other than the leader in libertarian intellectual property critiques, Mr Libertarian Heavyweight himself, Stephan Kinsella!
Article in question: https://bit.ly/32d3WXZ
For links to Support Us, Our Social Media, Video Platforms, Swag Stores, Discord Server, and way more check out our web site: https://www.disenthrall.me/platforms Patrick is one of the best podcast hosts/interviewers I've had, and he was excellent here. We crammed a lot of fisking into this 100 minute discussion, which was not easy since Strangerous purports to identify "17 fallacies" in my IP thought.
Odyssee video:
My backup video on Youtube:
https://youtu.be/Rt5weZMkeI0
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 366.
This is my appearance on the Repeal the 20th Century podcast (Youtube channel). We discussed my IP debate at the Soho Forum (see KOL364 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Richard Epstein: Patent and Copyright Law Should Be Abolished and KOL369 | Soho Forum IP Debate Post-Mortem with Greg Morin), the basic case against IP (both natural rights/Lockean and utilitarian), problems with both, problems with Locke's proto-Marxian labor theory of property, patent, copyright, and trademark, defamation, plagiarism, attribution, fraud, property rights in "value," and "ownership" of NFTs and bitcoin.
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/vrJ-jQUrBjE
Related links:
KOL364 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Richard Epstein: Patent and Copyright Law Should Be Abolished KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) KOL 037 | Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory KOL207 | Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Are Not About Plagiarism, Theft, Fraud, or Contract
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 365.
My friend Walter Block, economics professor at Loyola University-New Orleans, asked me to give a guest lecture today (Dec. 8, 2021) for his Law and Economics course, on the topics of intellectual property. This is it.
Transcript below.
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/PclRRN6podw
TRANSCRIPT "Intellectual Property: Law and Economics: Guest Lecture Walter Block’s Law and Economics Class" Loyola University-New Orleans, Dec. 8, 2021 by Stephan Kinsella 00:00:00
WALTER BLOCK: Okay, it’s 12:37. We usually start the class with a moment of silence, so we’ll start the class with a moment of silence.
00:00:09
[moment of silence]
00:00:12
Okay, students, let me introduce you to my friend, Stephan Kinsella who is a lawyer in Houston, working in Houston, and he is, I would say, one of the preeminent libertarian theoreticians. So without any further ado, you’ve all read his paper, and he’ll go over it a bit and have a nice dialogue with you. So Stephan, start.
00:00:36
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, can everybody hear me okay? What is this course? What’s the name of the course?
00:00:43
WALTER BLOCK: Law and Economics.
00:00:44
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, Law and Economics. Okay, so I can touch on both. I think what I’ll do is I’ll try to speak around 25-30 minutes, and then open it up for questions. And if you guys have any questions while I’m speaking, I don’t mind if you interrupt me if there’s something I said that needs clarification or if I’m not clear. So feel free to interrupt me during it. Otherwise, you can wait until I’m done.
00:01:08
So I think what I’d like to do is kind of maybe explain how I got to my views and where the paper came from. Basically, I started practicing law and patent law around 1993-94, and I had been a libertarian for a long time, and I had been thinking about the intellectual property issue because I was not satisfied with the arguments in favor of it by Ayn Rand and others partly because these rights terminate at a certain time, and it just didn’t make sense to me. Like if it’s a natural right or real property right, why would it terminate? And then how do you know what the right length of time is? All those issues.
00:01:45
So I searched for a better argument thinking I’m a libertarian, and I’m a patent lawyer. I’d know more about it than anyone else. I’ll figure this thing out. And finally I came to conclusion right around the time that I started practicing patent law that all of intellectual property law is totally unjustified. And so I ended up writing that paper in 1999 or so, which is over 26 years now. In the meantime, I’ve come across other arguments, other data, other ways of presenting it, and although I think the original argument is still sound. So that’s where we are.
00:02:23
I think what I’d like to do is focus on two types of intellectual property just because of the time constraint, and those are the two most important and the two most damaging in my view, which is patent and copyright. The other types are trademark and trade secret, and then there are some other more recent types like mask work protection for semi-conductors and database rights in some countries and boat hull designs. And I would also include defamation law as a type of intellectual property because the arguments for it are the same, although in the law it’s not usually considered that way.
00:02:57
So let me first talk about the term. I do think the term intellectual property is a loaded term, and it’s as misnomer, but we’re stuck with it for now and what we want to talk about it because that’s the way it’s gone. Originally, the four main types of intellectual property, which are patent law, copyright law, trademark law, and trade secret law. They were all separate types of all. They had different origins. Trade secret originated in the common law. Trademark originated in the common law,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 364.
This is my Soho Forum debate held Nov. 15, 2021, in Manhattan, against professor Richard Epstein, moderated by Gene Epstein. I defended the resolution "all patent and copyright law should be abolished" and Professor Epstein opposed it. Oxford debate rules applied which meant that whoever changed the most minds won. My side went from about 20 to 29 percentage points, gaining about 9; Richard went from about 44 to 55%, gaining about 11, so he won by 1.7 percentage points.
My notes, and a Transcript, are below. Postmortem episode to follow.
Update: See KOL369 | Soho Forum IP Debate Post-Mortem with Greg Morin.
Note: Reddit forums discussing the debate.
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/Ep2-ohgFOys
See Gene Epstein's note about Oxford debate rules at Soho Forum and the margin of error:
From Reason: Abolish Intellectual Property Rights? Patent lawyer Stephan Kinsella debates Law Professor Richard Epstein GENE EPSTEIN | 11.24.2021 1:00 PM
Abolish Intellectual Property Rights?
The United States Constitution explicitly calls for copyright and patent laws to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by "authors and inventors." But would getting rid of all intellectual property laws actually encourage more creativity and innovation by inventors, writers, and artists?
That was the topic of a November 15 Soho Forum debate held in New York City.
Stephan Kinsella, who's spent 28 years as a practicing patent law attorney, argued in favor of the proposition that "all patent and copyright law should be abolished."
He believes that government-created intellectual property laws empower patent and copyright trolls and powerful corporate interests while limiting the free flow of information, thus reducing the rate of innovation and creativity.
Richard Epstein, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, says that our current system isn't perfect but sees copyright and patents as a natural extension of private property rights and believes that it should be defended by libertarians accordingly.
The debate took place in New York City in front of a live audience and was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.
Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by John Osterhoudt. Production by Caveat. Photos by Brett Raney.
In 2018, Gene Epstein retired from a 26-year stint as Economics and Books Editor at Barron's, where he wrote the weekly column, "Economic Beat." He's director of the Soho Forum, which he co-founded in 2016, a monthly debate series that receives fiscal sponsorship from the Reason Foundation. ❧ —✦— Kinsella Notes —✦— Resolved: All patent and copyright law should be abolished. A Soho Forum Debate Stephan Kinsella vs. Richard Epstein Nov. 15, 2021 Caveat, 21 A Clinton St. New York, NY 10002 MAIN PRESENTATION – NOTES
Resolution: All patent and copyright law should be abolished
Why? because these laws violate property rights, they violate freedom of speech and the press, they distort culture, they impede innovation, they literally kill people, and they impoverish the human race. There is nothing good about patent and copyright law. They are total abominations and harm humanity. They are a mistake.
[No, you don’t have to be an anarchist, anti-legislation, a Rothbardian, Austrian, or even a libertarian to oppose IP law] (By the way I’ve been practicing patent and IP law for 28 years, representing clients such as Intel, General Electric, and so on.
So I have some rough idea of how the actual system works.)
What are the laws in question?
Copyright protects the right to copy of make “derivative works” of “original works of authorship” for the life of the author plus 70 years = 120–150 years.
This is enforced by injunctions and legal protections, such as statutory damages of $150k per act of infringement
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 363. I was interviewed by Caleb Brown on the topic of argumentation ethics and related matters. Recorded Oct. 29, 2021.
Note: I mangled my friend Bogdan Dabrowski's name during the podcast, switching it around and Russifying it to Dobran Bogdanovitch or something like that. Mea culpa, Brother Bogdan! (some of his work is linked here: Bogdan Dabrowski, Mises’ Human Action & Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics applied to Psychology, Philosophy Europe Convention, Cryptoanarchy Institute, Prague (Sept. 12, 2015); and Praxeological Psychology, 27 February 2013)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 362.
I was a guest on California Gold #6, with guest host Matthew Sands. From the shownotes: Stephan and Matt covered a wide variety of libertarian themes, including property rights, self-ownership, the Non-Aggression Principle, intellectual property, Hoppean Argumentation Ethics, Georgism, Objectivism, utilitarianism, deontology and much more. Stephan was hosted by Matthew Sands of the Nation of Sanity project (http://www.nationsofsanity.com/), which aims to promote the Non-Aggression Principle as a universal peace agreement, hosting for California Gold for the first time. https://youtu.be/_usiT5Z2JXY
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 361.
A nice young man, self-described as "generally an anarchist? But also a statist (monarchist? ie 'the kingdom of heaven') in the spiritual sense" had some questions for me since he doesn't have a lot of people to bounce his ideas off of. I agreed to do it if we could record it, in case anything interesting came out of it. You be the judge.
A variety of topics came up, primarily his interest in the problem of "oaths" as the root evil in the modern world, and related/other issues like the nature of contracts, usury as evil, Pournelle's "iron law of bureaucracy," Jesus, and the evils of the Uniform Commercial Code (something to do with Babylon), and Galambos.
Transcript below.
https://youtu.be/EEj137ADBzY TRANSCRIPT Libertarian Answer Man: Oaths: With Kent Wellington Stephan Kinsella & Kent Wellington Oct. 17, 2021 00:00:03 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, hey, this is Stephan Kinsella, Kinsella on Liberty. This is another one of my episodes where someone asked to talk to me about something. And I said yes, if I can record it in case there’s anything of interest to listeners. So this is Kent Wellington who briefly informed me he’s not exactly a libertarian but just has some questions. I don’t really know what you want to talk about, but Kent, why don’t you introduce yourself, however you want to do it, and then we can start?
00:00:27
KENT WELLINGTON: Hey there. My name is Kent Wellington, and I just have been very anti-IP since I was a child really. And when I realized that Mr. Kinsella was the one who wrote one of my favorite books, Against IP, I was really taken aback. And then I was like, wow, I should reach out to him and just try to have a conversation with him because I’ve sort of been in the – what do you say – I’ve just been up in the towers on these topics for a long time, like my whole life.
00:01:14
And I’ve never – I never really get to talk about these topics with anybody one on one, and I just saw his – that he puts his email out there, so I was like, I’ll just email him, see if he’ll – he’s willing to talk to me for even a minute. So that’s what we’re doing right now, and I have some very different takes, I guess, what I think are some novel takes but maybe aren’t, and I’d love to be proven wrong, or I just wanted to throw some things at you regarding contracts, IP, anarchism, a few different things. Mainly, I guess my main hypothesis is – so I’m very into the quotes from Jesus on oaths, and I believe that, without – so I think that oaths are the key social mechanism of the state. Do you – what do you think about that? Are oaths not the key social mechanism of the state?
00:02:41
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Oaths? O-A-T-H?
00:02:44
KENT WELLINGTON: Yes, oaths, yeah.
00:02:46
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I’m not sure I know what that means. What do you mean?
00:02:51
KENT WELLINGTON: So oaths are – if you want to become a doctor in the US, at least a professionally recognized doctor, you have to take the Hippocratic Oath. Others are – so our whole professional society is filled with oaths, which are really these sort of mystical activities, and our secular world is filled with these oaths. To become a lawyer, you need to take the bar oath. To become a politician, you just swear in. You need to take an oath of office. There’s a bajillion oaths you need to take in modern society if you want to partake in modern society.
00:03:42
And so Jesus – and I’m not necessarily getting religious here. You can just say that in one of the most popular books in the world, which the Bible is, well, the biggest guy, the most important guy in the book, in the New Testament, Jesus, in his biggest speech, the Sermon on the Mount, he says take no oaths at all. Instead, just say yes or no. Anything beyond this comes from the evil one. So my interpretation of that is that anything beyond you giving your word,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 360.
https://youtu.be/eC4g0vVepeI
Isaac Funderburk sent me this email: Hello, Mr. Kinsella! I'm an economics student in Tennessee looking to get involved in the discourse around Austrian economics and libertarianism, particularly through culture change and academic organizations. Would it be possible to talk for a few minutes sometime this weekend or next week?
I'm currently working with Turning Point USA as a social media manager and event organizer for a local ambassador, and I am involved with the Libertarian Party in the area. I've been familiar with Austrian economics for years now, but I had the good fortune to get an Austrian economics professor this semester and he has influenced me to pursue connections within the Mises Institute. I came across the many Mises Institute lectures and articles, and realized this is something I could get behind.
I've recently spoken to Dr. Jonathan Newman, Mr. Jeff Deist, and Dr. Patrick Newman. I'm interested in understanding contract theory on a deeper level and found your lectures on intellectual property to be insightful.
Would it be possible to arrange a brief phone call this week? Thank you for your time. We talked about college and what a libertarians goals should be, activism, careers, publishing, and economic and libertarian issues such as intellectual property.
Related:
Advice for Prospective Libertarian Law Students Reading Suggestions for Prospective/New Law Students (Roman/Civil law focus) (March 3, 2021)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 359.
From the recently-concluded Fifteenth Annual (2021) Meeting of the PFS, Bodrum, Turkey (Sept. 16–21, 2021).
For others, see the links in the Program, or the PFS YouTube channel, including the growing PFS 2021 YouTube Playlist. Additional media of the proceedings will be released presently.
https://youtu.be/hPPC9OfzHgI
For a similar talk, see KOL345 | Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PorcFest 2021).
The followup panel discussion later that day is here:
My notes are below: State Constitutions vs. The Libertarian Private Law Code Notes Stephan Kinsella Property and Freedom Society Annual Meeting Sep. 19, 2021 – Bodrum, Turkey
Joke: I’ve prepared a libertarian constitution, and I hope to cover as much of its 18 parts and 45 pages as possible in the next half hour.
Part I, Section A, Subsection 1: “Definitions.”
Just kidding. I’m not going to read it. I haven’t even finished it yet. My wife said “is this what you geeks think is funny?” I said we’ll see. Half of them may be relieved, but some of them will be saying “Oh damn, I wanted to hear a Libertarian Constitution read to me.”
Tell Hoppe Porcfest choking joke.
I’m going to talk about the idea of constitutions and libertarianism—whether the idea makes sense at all.
Since I’ve been a libertarian in the early 1980s, I’ve seen various utopian libertarian projects, many of them scams, most of them failures—
cruise ship nations, now seasteading (Blueseed);
Oceania—The Atlantis Project Same people: Project Lifeboat: “From the people who brought you the Oceania project so many years ago comes the Lifeboat project. An attempt to create a spaceship for the purposes of saving the human race from the singularity predicted by Vernor Vinge.”
crazy guys homesteading abandoned oil rigs and declaring sovereignty; private justice, arbitration, and common law groups;
The “Creative Common Law” project (Jamin Hubner), an anarcho-capitalist project in which I was enlisted as an advisor, only for it to later turn from “Creative Common Law 1.0: Anarcho-Capitalism” to “Creative Common Law 2.0: Anarcho-Socialism/Syndicalism”
Always be wary of “Waystation libertarians”
Tom Bell’s “Ulex,” or “Open Source Legal Operating System”; LiberLand, which I helped draft an early constitution for
see “The Voluntaryist Constitution”
Galt’s Gulch Chile, a scam that ended in disaster; the Honduras special economic zones; General Governance (David Johnston), the idea of leveraging Indian tribes’ special status to extend their federal tax-free enclaves or zones; even the Free State Project National Constitution Center’s “The Libertarian Constitution” Roderick Long’s “Imagineering Freedom: A Constitution of Liberty Part I: Between Anarchy and Limited Government” and Michael Darby’s “Draft Constitution for a Reviving or New Nation,” both at http://freenation.org/a/ Dennis Pratt https://www.quora.com/What-would-a-libertarian-bill-of-rights-look-like/answer/Dennis-Pratt-3 Siegen, Bernard H. (1994) Drafting a Constitution for a Nation or Republic Emerging into Freedom. 2d ed. Fairfax, Virginia: George Mason University Press.
I’ve been dragooned into helping some of these as consultant or advisor—
General Governance, we met with Indian tribe north of Texas; now you get a 404, as David Johnston moved on to bitcoin, after assuring me that within 6 months we’ll have a libertarian nation. Joel Bomgar, a libertarian-leaning conservative Christian businessman and Mississippi legislator. LiberLand (swam with Wit Jedlicka, the president, in Turkey) Mediterranean sea. Others I’ve forgotten.
Often these projects involve the drafting of a new “Constitution” or some similar code or legal document.
Why do we even use the word “Constitution”?
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 358.
I was interviewed by Marc Victor and Andy Marcantel of the Live and Let Live project about libertarianism.
https://youtu.be/N0Mqp9Di_z8
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 357.
I was a guest recently on Peter Quiñones' show Free Man Beyond The Wall, Episode 631 (Sept. 15, 2021). From his shownotes:
Pete and Stephan discuss the Constitutionality of Biden's vaccine mandate and then get into discussions about Hoppe's plan for local politics and how it can fight against overreach by the Feds.
I post this from Bodrum, Turkey, at the 2021 PFS meeting, watching Saif Ammous talk about bitcoin. The internet is wonderful.
Youtube TBD--
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 356.
I was interviewed by Caleb Brown on the topic of IP--explained what it is, its origins, how it's a type of crony capitalism, and how it emerged historically and acquired the name "intellectual property." Recorded Sep. 4, 2021.
https://youtu.be/E4_oafovCyY
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 355.
I was a guest today (Aug. 20, 2021) on The Bitcoin Group.
https://youtu.be/cZXCDRpXVCQ
Shownotes:
Featuring… Joshua Scigala (https://twitter.com/Vaultoro) Dan Eve (https://twitter.com/cryptopoly) Stephan Kinsella (https://twitter.com/NSKinsella) and Thomas Hunt (https://twitter.com/MadBitcoins)
THIS WEEK:
Crypto Price Prediction: Bitcoin Could Be About To Soar To $100,000 And Ethereum To $5,000 As Cardano And Solana Suddenly Surge https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybam... Cade Cunningham Partners With BlockFi, Will Be Paid Sign-on Bonus in Bitcoin - The Street Crypto: Bitcoin and cryptocurrency news, advice, analysis and more https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/bitc... US Mortgage Giant To Accept Bitcoin This Year, Considers Other Cryptocurrencies https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-mor... Coinbase will buy $500M in crypto and invest 10% of all future profits in digital assets https://cointelegraph.com/news/coinba...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 354.
Libertarian Nicholas Sinard asked me to field some questions about the referenced issues, so we did so.
Update: some of these issues also discussed in Libertarian Answer Man: Restrictive Covenants and Homeowners Associations (HOAs) and Libertarian Answer Man: Restrictive Covenants, Reserved Rights, and Copyright.
https://youtu.be/54pMdixfWTI
Relevant links:
No, Libertarians, We Should NOT Abolish the CDA §230 and DMCA Safe Harbors!
Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Intellectual Property
Is Macy’s Part of the State? A Critique of Left Deviationists Causation and Aggression (with Patrick Tinsley), The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, vol. 7, no. 4 (Winter 2004): 97-112 A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value “Aggression” versus “Harm” in Libertarianism
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 353.
Some twitter users were confused about IP and whether stealing someone's document from their safe implied damages greater than stealing a blank document, and whether this difference implied IP, etc. So I did an impromptu zoom and a few people joined to ask questions about this and other matters. Unpolished. Enjoy.
https://youtu.be/NzXyZb9XaR4
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 351.
I was a guest host for the Tom Woods Show, Ep. 1941 (released July 29, 2021) while he is out sick. Shownotes: Guest host Stephan Kinsella talks to Shane Hazel about his growing awareness of liberty and Austrian economics while in the Marines in Iraq, his run for Senate on the Libertarian ticket in 2020 in Georgia and his role as “spoiler,” his future plans to run for Governor of Georgia, and his proposals to fix the broken criminal justice system. Additional shownotes:
Podcast: RADICAL with Shane Hazel Twitter: https://twitter.com/ShaneTHazel 11 questions for Georgia U.S. Senate candidate Shane Hazel PEAKd — video & live-streaming platform on HIVE
https://youtu.be/zsKZO5VxZfw
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 350.
While at FreedomFest 2021, Gene Epstein (of SOHO Forum) and I discussed intellectual property and other libertarian matters on the Pauls to the Wall podcast.
Recorded July 23, 2021; released July 25, 2021.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 349.
Recorded July 13, 2021.
https://youtu.be/w9t-HD5J2xY
Excerpt: Stephan on the NAP
https://youtu.be/kbW57Ca9kNk
Join the patreon at https://patreon.com/breakthecyclejs Join Subscribestar at https://Subscribestar.com/breakthecyc... Tips at https://paypal.me/JoshuaSmithChair2020 available on all of your favorite podcast apps. https://toplobsta.com for dope gear. https://lorenzotti.coffee for delicious Italian coffee thank you to Whiskey Grenade for the great jams. Support the stream: https://streamlabs.com/fightthedespots
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 348.
I sat down with my friend Aaron Voisine, of BRD (formerly Breadwallet), to discuss how the average worker/saver would invest and save in a Bitcoin world. Would they hold some stocks? Real estate? Bonds? Or would they keep close to 100% of their savings in cash, as many bitcoiners seem to assume? And related issues. I doubt people would keep most of their savings in cash since they would chase higher returns and also diversify away from some risks unique to monetary assets. Voisine dissents. I have questions, not answers, while Voisine thinks he has answers.
Kinsella, Aaron Graham, Aaron Voisine, Juan Carpio, at Bitcoin 2021, Miami
Kinsella, Aaron Lasher, Aaron Voisine, Aaron Graham, Juan Carpio, chilling during Bitcoin 2021, Miami
https://youtu.be/g24jBL81vQ8
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 259-2.
Recorded Feb. 8, 2019.
On Feb. 8, 2019, I delivered a talk at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum in Manchester NH: KOL259 | “How To Think About Property”, New Hampshire Liberty Forum 2019. While there I was a guest on the Vin Armani and Dave Butler (of Vin and Dave's Destination Unknown podcast) livestream of the Free State Project's New Hampshire Liberty Forum, Day 1 -- we discussed government versus the state, intellectual property, and related issues.
Youtube below. I left in the cool "New Hampshire" song on the video excerpt below, but trimmed most of it out for the podcast feed.
https://youtu.be/1yvHTPs9Gmw
Full episode featuring other guests:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 347.
My appearance on a new youtube channel, This Time I'm Curious (TTIC) with Jesse Munson, Episode 1 (recorded July 4, 2021).
We talked about a variety of topics -- the history/evolution of libertarianism and my involvement in it, Ayn Rand, the Ron Paul movement, animal rights, AI consciousness and AI rights, artificial meat, quantum mechanics, UFO's, music, movies, guilty Youtube pleasures, Objectivism, The Fountainhead, Kinsella's place in the libertarian movement, alcohol addiction, etc.
https://youtu.be/a8fli8AbNXY
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 346.
I was a guest on the Tatiana Show, with host Tatiana Moroz. (Released July 1, 2021, recorded June 30, 2021).
Transcript below.
Youtube: [tbd]
Original youtube:
https://youtu.be/HSIIzKGk_aw
From her shownotes:
COPYRIGHT & SATOSHI’S LEGACY WITH STEPHAN KINSELLA OF THE OPEN CRYPTO ALLIANCE
On June 29, 2021, a UK court found that Australian computer scientist Craig Wright is the proper copyright owner of the Bitcoin Whitepaper, awarding initial damages in excess of $48,000 to Wright and demanding that Bitcoin.org remove the Whitepaper from its site. Guest Stephan Kinsella of the Open Crypto Alliance joins Tatiana today to talk about the decision and why it reveals all the most troubling problems with the government-run patent, trademark & copyright system. He discusses the background of the case and the personal financial interest that he believes is driving Wright’s copyright trolling campaign. And he also gives his own thoughts on Bitcoin, blockchain technology, smart contracts and more.
If you like the program, subscribe today via Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen!
About the Guest: (Norman) Stephan Kinsella is an attorney and libertarian writer in Houston. He was previously General Counsel for Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., a partner with Duane Morris, and adjunct law professor at South Texas College of Law. A registered patent attorney and former adjunct professor at South Texas College of Law, he received an LL.M. (international business law) from King’s College London-University of London, a JD from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center at LSU, and BSEE and MSEE degrees from LSU.
He has spoken, lectured and published widely on both legal topics, including intellectual property law and international law, and also on various areas of libertarian legal theory. Libertarian-related publications include Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (co-editor, with Jörg Guido Hülsmann, Mises Institute, 2009); Against Intellectual Property (Mises Institute, 2008); and Law in a Libertarian World: Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Papinian Press, 2021). Forthcoming works include Copy This Book: The Case for Abolishing Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2022).
Kinsella’s legal publications include International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide (Oxford, 2020); Online Contract Formation (Oceana, 2004); Trademark Practice and Forms (Oxford & West/Thomson Reuters 2001–2013); World Online Business Law (Oxford, 2003–2011); Digest of Commercial Laws of the World (Oxford, 1998-2013); Protecting Foreign Investment Under International Law: Legal Aspects of Political Risk (Oceana Publications, 1997); and Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary (Quid Pro Books, 2011).
Kinsella is a co-founder and member of the Advisory Council for the Open Crypto Alliance (2020–), a member of the Editorial Board of Reason Papers (2009–), a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Molinari Review (2014–), a member of the Advisory Board of the Lexington Books (Rowman & Littlefield) series Capitalist Thought: Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (2013–), Founder and Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (2010–present), and legal advisor to LBRY (2015–). Previously, he was Founder and Executive Editor of Libertarian Papers (2009–2018), a Senior Fellow for the Ludwig von Mises Institute (2009–2013), a member of the Advisory Council of the Government Waste and Over-regulation Council of the Our America Initiative (2014–2017), Book Review Editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies (Mises Institute, 2000–2004), a member of the Editorial Board of The Journal of Peace, Prosperity & Freedom (Liberty Australia, 2012–2016), a member of the Advisory Panel of the Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) (2009–2012),
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 345.
This was my talk delivered today (June 26, 2021) at PorcFest 2021: "Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution,” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code."
The notes that I roughly followed are below; pix also below. Transcript below.
For a related talk, see KOL359 | State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PFS 2021)
Youtube
https://youtu.be/hK6LyjRvvCk
This is the video with better audio added after from my iphone recording, with the help of Jacob Lovell.
Below is the original with passable audio
https://youtu.be/6qzJXBWLhTA
The description from the PorcFest website (which will probably disappear at some time in the future): Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution” —————– When: Sat, 12:00P _(60m) Speaker: Stephan Kinsella {Website} {Pic}, An American intellectual property attorney and Austro-anarcho-libertarian writer and speaker for 25 years. He has spoken, lectured and published widely on various areas of libertarian legal theory such as rights theory, anarchism, contract theory, intellectual property, and on legal topics such as intellectual property law and international law. His legal works include International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide (Oxford University Press, 2020) and Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary (Quid Pro Books, 2011); his libertarian writing includes Against Intellectual Property (Mises Institute 2008) and the forthcoming Law in a Libertarian World (Papinian Press, 2021). Forthcoming works include Copy This Book: The Case for Abolishing Intellectual Property (2022), and a systematic, codified statement of libertarian principles as an alternative to constitutions and committee-prepared political platforms. For Whom: Constitutionalists; secessionists; Federal reformers; decentralists; polycentrists; anarcho-capitalists. Description: State constitutions, including the US Constitution, are not libertarian. The purpose of the US Constitution was to establish a new, powerful, central state, not to protect individual rights. Efforts to draft “libertarian constitutions” are also often flawed, as when they presuppose and legitimate a state or a territory owned by a single owner (Liberland). Does the idea of a “libertarian constitution” make sense? What kind of codification or statement of libertarian principles is appropriate? {More} Where: Anth: Anthem Theater, OfficeBld
❧ TRANSCRIPT Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code Stephan Kinsella PorcFest 2021, Lancaster NH June 26, 2021 00:00:01
W: … published by the Mises Institute in 2008 and the forthcoming Law and the Libertarian World. So Stephan, I’ll let you take it away about state constitutions.
00:00:10
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay. Thanks a lot. If you can’t hear me, let me know. I have no mic. I speak kind of loud and kind of fast even though…
00:00:17
W: If we need to turn it up we can, so let us know.
00:00:19
STEPHAN KINSELLA: All right, so my talk is – I’ll explain the title as we get into this: Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution.” So I prepared a libertarian constitution, and I hope to cover as much of its 18 parts and 45 pages as possible in this next hour. So part one, section A, subsection 1: definitions. I’m just joking. I’m not going to read my constitution. I haven’t even finished writing it yet. I read this to my wife and she said, Is this what you geeks think is funny? I said we’ll see. I said half the people in the audience might be relieved, but the other half might be, damn, I really wanted to hear a libertarian constitution read to me point by point.
00:01:03
I’m going to talk about the idea of constitutions and libertarianism and whether the whole idea makes sense at all. So I’ve been a libertarian since about 1982, and I’ve seen so many libertarian – utopian libertarian project...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 344.
This is my appearance with Adam Terrell of the Theocracy podcast: 022 Copyrights Are Unlawful with Stephan Kinsella (recorded May 7, 2021). From his shownotes: Now, some of you know I have a background in media production. And I have gotten royalty checks and benefitted from a copyright "tradition" (I don't call it law) on multiple occasions, and I have family who have had their entire livelihoods supported by it. So how can I say in the title that "Copyrights Are Unlawful?" Stephan Kinsella is my guest today. I found him through Tom Woods's podcast years back, and I've run in to his talks at Mises University online several times. He's a patent attorney who has helped me think through these issues practically relating to intellectual property and why it doesn't exist. I believe there is a Bible verse I can point to as well in Exodus, but we'll get to that. We get in to some less-than-settled issues as well. Spotify:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/07enqNJEVY2HS2dV62CtRr
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/ml_yZqTtlWM
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 343.
This is an IP and libertarianism Q&A. It was originally supposed to be a debate with an intellectual property attorney on IP but after challenging me, she bowed out. I went live at the appointed time anyway and discussed it briefly, and fielded questions from those that tuned in. We started off in Youtube live stream and because it sucks, I switched over to a Zoom call 34 minutes in so others could ask questions and participate (next time I'll use Zoom only).
This started when someone on Twitter recommended my Against Intellectual Property:
https://twitter.com/lpky/status/1402789745407807488
To which one @libertascoco responded with this snipe:
https://twitter.com/libertascoco/status/1402820244851154945
It later turned out that she is be soi-disant IP attorney Nina Prevot, whose Youtube channel is here and who has discussed and ham-fisted, ineptly attempted to defend IP here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNq5J7YoBOo
Then she challenged me to a debate, after falsely claiming I never debate people:
https://twitter.com/libertascoco/status/1402993126915010567
I instantly took her up on it:
https://twitter.com/NSKinsella/status/1402995267234779144
But she ended up backing out so I went online at 7pm anyway. The main reason I was willing to debate her was to let observers see how weak her arguments would be, and to confirm my repeated claim that “There are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property” (see also “Absurd Arguments for IP”).
Anyhow, I went online as noted above and discussed IP and other libertarian issues with the audience. This one was not as tight as most of my material, and I thought it was a bit sloppy and all over the map, but many of the participants seemed to enjoy it, so here it is, FWIW.
Youtube of the discussion:
https://youtu.be/G0_3ffxzHz0
Cade Share, "A Defense of Rothbardian Ethics via a Mediation of Hoppe and Rand" (online at booksc dot org then /book/51341942/48c87a)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 342.
The Bitcoin2021 audience
Thanks to the good offices of my friend Vijay Boyapati, author of the new book-length version of The Bullish Case for Bitcoin, the organizers of bitcoin2021 in Miami, June 4-5 2021, graciously gave me two minutes to make an announcement about the Open Crypto Alliance (@OpenCryptoX) and its work, on Saturday June 5. I was introduced by Charlie Shrem.
Transcript below.
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/-ns4R3Y41Lw
Note (4/20/22): The video above was taken down by a copyright strike from Bitcoin Magazine (ironically). They have promised to restore it, but in the meantime, here is the backup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVDNEnRAZU4&t=15865s
Kinsella and Vijay
Backstage with my copy of Vijay's Bullish Case for Bitcoin TRANSCRIPT Bitcoin2021 Announcement: Open Crypto Alliance Stephan Kinsella Bitcoin2021, Miami, June 5, 2021 My name is Stephan Kinsella and I'm a libertarian theorist, patent attorney, and patent abolitionist. I'm a member of the Open Crypto Alliance, recently formed to combat the growing threat to the bitcoin and blockchain ecosystems posed by patents being filed in this space, by companies such as nChain, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Mastercard, and others. nChain, for example, has over 20 European patents already granted, and hundreds more filed and pending and about 23,000 blockchain and crypto patents have been filed in the last couple years. These patent filings are of grave concern to those of us in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Our partner group, Square's Crypto Open Patent Alliance, or COPA, addresses this problem by having members pledge never to use their crypto-technology patents offensively. However, this is of limited use against patent trolls and patent holders who are not members of the alliance.
Our group, the Open Crypto Alliance, is focused on preventing abusive patents from being granted in the first place by trying to knock these patents out. We do this by identifying dangerous patents, finding prior art that the patent office should have considered, and submitting a challenge to the patent.
We are actually working on our first challenge and we're seeking help from experts who have a deep understanding of elliptic curve cryptography. If anyone would like to help, please contact us at www.OpenCryptoAlliance.org
Thank you.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 341.
This was a webinar I did for an Argentinian audience for ESEADE May 26, 2021. The topic was formally "Should We Release Patents on Vaccines" ("¿Hay que liberar las patentes sobre las vacunas?"). In this talk, I briefly provide an overview of the nature of property rights and the principled case against IP, then apply it to vaccines, and took questions from the audience.
Transcript below.
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/EgYS8ldQ_AY
Original video:
https://youtu.be/-mjc7ZjYQ0o TRANSCRIPT Should We Release Patents on Vaccines? An Overview of Libertarian Property Rights and the Case Against IP Stephan Kinsella May 26, 2021 KOL341| ESEADE Lecture: Should We Release Patents on Vaccines? An Overview of Libertarian Property Rights and the Case Against IP
00:00:01
[Spanish]
00:04:21
JUAN IGNACIO IBAÑEZ: So thank you very much, Iván. I’m just going to proceed in English like the rest of this little talk. So thank you to you and to ESEADE for providing this space. Thank you, Stephan, for participating, and I’m just going to start off with the introduction of our star guest speaker, which is Stephan Kinsella. So Stephan Kinsella is one of the most prominent libertarian thinkers, specializing in the field of intellectual property.
00:04:48
Not only is he a writer and a speaker but also a practicing patent attorney and the director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom. He was founding and executive director of Libertarian Papers, which is one of the journals that has contributed the most to libertarian thought in the past years. He is also the author of a milestone book, Against Intellectual Property, published in 2008 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. And it’s no overstatement to say that when it comes to debating intellectual property, his work is a must-read. So I’m going to kick start this meeting by – I’ll provide some context first and a trigger question for you, Stephan, and then just give you all the time you need to speak.
00:05:31
Maybe I’ll pitch in if I need to ask a question, but I will make a sort of Q&A at the end. So just to lay out the ground here, the title of this talk is Should Vaccine Patents Be Released? And what we’re getting at, what it boils down to, is are vaccine patents legitimate? Are they just? Should they exist? You have read a lot on the subject. You’re clearly against intellectual property. This is why we want you to explain your position because it seems, for many people, that as Iván said in Spanish, many people who uphold property rights find it intuitive to also uphold intellectual property rights.
00:06:19
So the question would be as follows. If I create something, I come up with something that didn’t exist before, and this is the fruit of my mind and a sign that I came up with, why don’t I get to keep it? After all, I own my mind. I own my body, and don’t I have a right to keep the fruit of my labor, which I generated, the product which I generated with my mind and my body? So isn’t this only just? And aren’t vaccine manufacturing or vaccine-developing companies have patent-holding rights? Aren’t they just exerting this very same right that I have just described? Why is any of this illegitimate? I’ll just give you the floor now. We cannot hear you right now.
00:07:24
STEPHAN KINSELLA: There we go. Sorry. How about now?
00:07:27
JUAN IGNACIO IBAÑEZ: Perfect.
00:07:27
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Thank you, Iván and Juan Ignacio, for the invitation and for allowing me to speak to everyone in English because my Spanish is very poor for which I have little excuse because I live in Houston, Texas, and I probably should learn it. But thank you for the opportunity. I think this came about because there were some Twitter comments in Spanish, which I was replying to. And I just offered to speak about it because sometimes that is the easiest way.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 340.
"Watch as Benjamin Politics, Bleu Politics and Mencius Kuang interview well renowned economist Stephan Kinsella" (Jan. 12, 2021)
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/WUmObXbAVTA
Original:
https://youtu.be/Z3kcgDPM5BE
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 339.
This is an audio version of my Foreword to Chase Rachels' A Spontaneous Order, narrated by Graham Wright.
https://youtu.be/aRSLyEukURs
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 338.
From Human Action Podcast Ep. 308, "Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty with Stephan Kinsella" (May 27, 2021), with Jeff Deist, discussing Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty, chapters 9, 13, 19, et pass. (PDF; other versions at [ b-ok dot cc then /s/rothbard%20the%20ethics%20of%20liberty ).
Shownotes: Lawyer and legal theorist Stephan Kinsella joins the show as we dive into Part II of Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty, grappling with the foundational issues of crime, proportionality, and contract. When is property justly held? When may injuries to a person or property be addressed with force, and how much force? How do we deal with one another contractually, in terms of promises and expectation? How do we resolve disputes privately? Rothbard presents a remarkable exposition of a theory of liberty, a normative justification for laissez-faire which was sorely lacking. Kinsella does a remarkable job of explaining Rothbard's concepts with force and clarity, so you won't want to miss this episode! Transcript below.
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/AkEdMTDrPfY
Raw video (unedited):
Related Links
Rothbard on the “Original Sin” in Land Titles: 1969 vs. 1974 (Nov. 5, 2014) KOL146 | Interview of Williamson Evers on the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights, 30 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 607-45 (1997) Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach KOL197 | Tom Woods Show: The Central Rothbard Contribution I Overlooked, and Why It Matters: The Rothbard-Evers Title-Transfer Theory of Contract Justice and Property Rights: Rothbard on Scarcity, Property, Contracts… KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery
TRANSCRIPT Rothbard on Punishment, Property, and Contract Stephan Kinsella with Jeff Deist The Human Action Podcast, Mises Institute May 27, 2021
00:00:08
JEFF DEIST: Kinsella, you ready, Freddy?
00:00:09
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I’m ready. I guess I can take my mask off.
00:00:12
JEFF DEIST: What is it? I can’t see. What’s it got on it?
00:00:16
STEPHAN KINSELLA: V for Vendetta.
00:00:17
JEFF DEIST: Oh yeah, yeah.
00:00:19
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I got it backwards. That’s why.
00:00:21
00:00:24
JEFF DEIST: I love that movie. I like Stephen Fry generally, and it’s got a very young, cute Natalie Portman.
00:00:30
STEPHAN KINSELLA: She had her day.
00:00:31
JEFF DEIST: Before she was in all those – I think she was in Star Wars movies at some point.
00:00:35
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yep.
00:00:37
JEFF DEIST: And then she became sort of a Hillary person.
00:00:41
STEPHAN KINSELLA: True.
00:00:42
JEFF DEIST: All right, we good, Clay?
00:00:44
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back once again to the Human Action podcast. If you have been following along—you should be following along—you’ll know that we’ve been working our way through some various Rothbard texts in the past few weeks. And at some point we announced that we are going to tackle The Ethics of Liberty, which, after Man, Economy, and State might be the most treatise-like or full-length work of Rothbard’s for our purposes.
00:01:09
And we started the analysis of this book last week with Dr. Walter Block. We went through part one of the book, which deals in natural law. If you haven’t seen that show, be sure and go back and take a look because it’s got a lot of Walter Blockisms, and we wrestled with a lot of things conceptually in that show. But part two of the book where Rothbard lays out a theory of liberty is really the meat of it.
00:01:32
And I thought there would be nobody better for our purposes this week than our friend, Stephan Kinsella who is, of course,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 190-2.
In 2015 I delivered this talk: “On Life without Patents and Copyright: Or, Who Would Pick The Cotton?” at the Property and Freedom Society, 10th Annual Meeting, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 13, 2015), which is here: KOL190 | On Life without Patents and Copyright: Or, But Who Would Pick the Cotton? (PFS 2015).
This is the subsequent panel discussion with Q&A from the speakers for that day, to-wit: Hans-Hermann Hoppe, David Dürr, Stephan Kinsella, Frank van Dun, Anthony Daniels (Theodore Dalrymple).
Transcript below.
Panel discussion video:
TRANSCRIPT Panel Discussion, Q&A: Hoppe, Dürr, Kinsella, van Dun, Daniels (PFS 2015) by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, David Dürr, Stephan Kinsella, Frank van Dun, Anthony Daniels Property and Freedom Society, 10th Annual Meeting Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 13, 2015) 00:00:23
HANS-HERMANN HOPPE: Somebody approached me with a wish – it was a question, if email addresses would like to be shared. I did not want to do anything without the people’s permission, so there will be a list at the front desk where you can maybe – the name list of all the participants where you can either write your email address in there or not if you prefer not to make your email address known to others. So whoever is interested, please take advantage of the opportunity, and David Durr wanted to make a brief announcement too. Give the microphone.
00:01:17
DAVID DÜRR: Maybe first concerning also the email address, I was asked by some of you whether I could send you these slides of this morning so you could look at it closer with all the writings. So my email address to just give it to you is D-U-E, double R at swisslegal in one word, swisslegal. This is the name of our law group, dot C-H. And then may I add this? Some people ask me whether what I gave in the speech is also somewhere written in an article. So there are not long and thick books of me yet on this matter. I do have two books here. They are not as sophisticated and scientific as the one of Hans. And namely they are not so English. They are German.
00:02:27
One is (indiscernible_00:02:29) which means state opera. Switzerland, you know, the state as a big opera. It’s the state house actually as opera house, and the subtitle is Few Stars, Many Startists. So this is one – I just have one copy of each if you want to look at this, those who read English, or if you want to buy it or order it, so it’s here. The second one is I have a regular column in a newspaper in Switzerland, and these are sort of anarchic – anarchist columns, and the collection of this is in another book. They are always on Fridays in that newspaper, so it’s “Das Wort zum Freitag,” the world to the Friday, not to the Sunday as usual, to the Friday, so this is the second book. Thank you.
00:03:31
Q: Which newspaper is it? Which newspaper?
00:03:33
DAVID DÜRR: It’s called Basler Zeitung. It’s a – people say it’s a right-wing newspaper. They are very open in that they have, through all parties, columnists, but I like the newspaper as such, but I’m very independent. I had one column once when I compared IS or ISIS with US. I said, well, actually it’s about the same thing. US is just bigger, and that gave huge protests from the newspaper itself. And then this gave me an opportunity just to put one on the top because right afterwards these CIA reports came up about torture practices. That was a wonderful example to insist on it anymore.
00:04:41
00:04:49
Q: Okay. My question is for Stephan Kinsella. It’s a question, not an argument. What is the case for private photos and pictures shared over the internet on Facebook and someone else is using it? What is the argumental basis on that from the IP perspective?
00:05:13
STEPHAN KINSELLA: What’s the justification for using someone else’s?
00:05:15
Q: Using, or do they need our permission, without permission? What is the case for…
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 337 (May 23, 2021).This is my appearance on Join the Wasabikas: A Bitcoin Privacy Podcast, Ep. 15.0, with Max Hillebrand.
Transcript below.
From the shownotes: Stephan Kinsella is an incredible scholar of the Austrian school of praxeology, his major contribution is the advancement of the arguments in favor of property of scarce goods, and against intellectual property of non-scarce goods. He applies his in depth wisdom to how Bitcoin can be explained in this view. We discussed a variety of topics related to bitcoin, property rights, Austrian economics, and so on. Shownotes for the full episode: Stephan Kinsella is an incredible scholar of the Austrian school of praxeology, his major contribution is the advancement of the arguments in favor of property of scarce goods, and against intellectual property of non-scarce goods. He applies his in depth wisdom to how Bitcoin can be explained in this view.
Watch all Highlights Watch all full episodes Website: https://WasabiWallet.io Blog: https://blog.WasabiWallet.io Documentation: https://docs.WasabiWallet.io GitHub: https://github.com/zkSNACKs/WalletWasabi Podcast: https://anchor.fm/Wasabikas YouTube: https://youtube.com/c/WasabiWallet
Full episode on Youtube:
My version (with professionally prepared captions):
Wassabikas version:
Timestamps:
00:00 Introduction. / Scarce vs non-scarce goods. 02:38 Stephan's background. / What property rights should be. / Intellectual property. 06:50 Why do we need property rights for scarce resources? / Praxeology: the logic of human action (Mises). / Assignment of an owner to anything that could be contested. / You own your body. / Homesteading. / Patents and copyright. 13:43 The purpose of law. 14:46 The definition of scarcity. / How much is the abundance of a good tied to its actual scarcity? / Superabundance. / Rivalrous or conflictable resources. / Production. / Dispute. 19:48 How to behave towards the aggressor. / Rules that promote peace. / Appeal to norms. 22:57 Retribution of the victim. / Empathy and evolution. / Being part of a community. / Crime is impossible to eradicate. 26:24 Entropy. / Creation is more difficult than destruction. / Defence is easier than offence. 27:48 What is the qualitative difference between retribution and pre-emptive defence? / Non-aggression principle. / Punishing people is expensive. / Restitution. 31:36 Juristic/legal ownership vs economic ownership. / Right to use vs ability to use. / Self-enforcing systems. / Ownership vs control. 33:48 Why don't you own the private key? / You can't own information. / Information is always the impatterning of a substrate. / Information is a feature of the owned thing. / Ownership can only be applied on physical things. 39:26 Craig Wright wants a property right over other people's computers. 40:41 Non-scarcity in cyberspace. 42:21 Using cryptography to enforce access rights. / Money is rivalrous. / Money has a network effect. / Bitcoin mimics real-world scarcity. / The purpose of money. / Non-coincidence of wants. / Economic calculation. / Any amount of money will do. 47:38 Absolute scarcity in the monetary medium. / Sacrifice. / Low supply. Low stock-to-flow ratio. / Gold vs Bitcoin. 50:11 Permissionless write-access to a central ledger. 53:43 What defines the absolute scarcity of gold? / Why did gold become money? 56:31 You verify that a transaction is valid based on the rules to which you opt in. / Verify the sacrifice of someone else. / Everyone is verifying according to the same rules. 58:54 Divisibility of bitcoin and sidechains. / Consensus. 01:02:22 The way users will act in the context of hard-fork. 01:03:03 Is the "digital gold" metaphor misleading. 01:04:47 A system bordering on chaos but thriving. 01:05:31 Being one of the founding fathers' of America.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 336.
From April 22, 2021. "Here I interview the great Stephan Kinsella and discuss whether or not patents and intellectual property are actually a good thing. We get into philosophy, practical advice, and more."
Related links:
C4SIF.org Resources A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP Do Business Without Intellectual Property
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 335.
I was interviewed by Paul Kramer of the Youth in Policy Podcast. Youtube highlights version below:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 334.
A libertarian named Sebastian is researching the issue of "habeas data" from a libertarian perspective, and wanted to discuss with me. So we did.
This involves issues and questions such as:
Proposition: Habeas Data is emerging in some countries as a legal or constitutional writ predicated on a personal autonomy right to one's personal data. From a libertarian perspective, is this a type of bodily/personal autonomy "property" right? What if the data is held by a public official/state organization and the habeas data remedy is limited to access/correcton/deletion from a public database? Is this libertarian? Is our private data always private vis-a-vis the never claim-of-right of the State? Is that at odds with a bodily autonomy view of privacy/private property (information) rights?
This is of interest as the Latin American/OAS writ is trending toward personal information as a kind of personal (bodily) autonomy right.
What is the relation between Habeas Data and Right to Know/Right to Truth in Human Rights Law? How does the notion of Habeas Data relate to the libertarian critique of intellectual property and ownership of information?
Related:
Right to be forgotten My Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary From Sebastian: "A bit tangential but if Right to Truth ever includes Right to The Law: In Civil Law Systems, iura novit curia, or "The Court Knows the Law""
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 274-2.
This is the Q&A panel following my talk [KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019)] for the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society, Bodrum, Turkey (Sept. 12–17, 2019). For the four panelists' talks, see the Program, or the PFS 2019 YouTube Playlist.
Transcript below.
Q&A with Hülsmann, Dürr, Kinsella, Hoppe (PFS 2019) Unedited Transcript, with Guido Hülsmann, David Dürr, Stephan Kinsella, Hans-Hermann Hoppe Sept. 15, 2019 00:00:09
M: Hans, congratulations. Your speech was really good food for thought, and because I want to hear more of it, I’ll try to challenge you and just create a little bit. You made it seem as if going from a state of more culture as human beings to a state of culture somehow was a conscious agreement between human beings to find tools or artifices to reach the purposes. And to me it seems like too much of separation between nature and culture because we see among animals quite a lot of complicated languages.
00:00:43
I call them languages, of course nothing compared to the complexity of the human being. We see tools used by animals, and of course by our ancestors. So it looks more like a spectrum which emerged out of our nature, and of course then complexities or at some certain level of complexity you can call it a more interesting culture and a more complex culture. But I think you focus too much on the gulf between the nature and culture.
00:01:14
HANS-HERMANN HOPPE: I would doubt that we can speak of animals using instruments. We can give completely causal explanations for them doing certain things. It has also never happened that animals were constructing something that they cannot do by nature. Men can construct instruments that make him – enable him to do things that he could not do by nature. We can construct a car. We construct an airplane. Yes, we have beavers doing – building dams, but no beaver has ever done anything else but building dams or come up with, oh no, we just divert the flow of the river or something of that kind.
00:02:00
So the explanation that we can give for animal behavior, we would not need any reference to human or teleological vocabulary of goals and means and ends and success and failure. We can – we do that because sometimes we like animals and like to describe them in human terms, but we could easily explain all of that in causal terms just as much. Also, when animals learn something that they didn’t know how to do before like circus animals or something like that, that we can – again, this learning we can describe in a causal way—reinforcement, repetition, beating them, or not beating them, giving them a piece of sugar and whatever it is. We never need human terminology to explain their behavior, but in our case, we do. That is – that would be my point.
00:03:06
GUIDO HÜLSMANN: Actually, the naturalistic position can also be challenged that there are many natural phenomena that we cannot truly explain without a teleological element, such as the function of an eye for example. Whenever we talk of a function, an eye, a liver, any human organ, a cell, DNA, information content and so on, you cannot just – the old terminology cannot just explain this in terms of the material characteristics and the so-called efficient qualities so what came before, and then what came after. You need to have a teleological argument.
00:03:45
M: I want to ask whether you will agree and perhaps expand upon this idea that another couple of good examples besides language are law, in particular, complex legal systems that emerge spontaneously over time. And I think that this argument actually was made by Hayek and Sudha Shenoy as well. And also, as a second example, as a second additional example, religion, and in particular one aspect of religion, that is, liturgy, different liturgies that embody sophisticated meanings that are transcendent.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 333.
This is my interview by Jeff Tucker (Oct. 9, 2010), which preceded my first presentation of the Mises Academy course “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics” (Nov.-Dec. 2010). For the second presentation in 2011, see KOL172 | “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics: Lecture 1: History and Law” (Mises Academy, 2011).
Transcript below.
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/-XlKNStzoLs Understanding IP: An Interview with Stephan Kinsella, Mises Daily (Oct. 21, 2010)
10/21/2010Jeffrey A. TuckerStephan Kinsella
Jeffrey Tucker: Stephan Kinsella, it's a pleasure to have you here today. Welcome. Stephan Kinsella: Thank you. It's good to be here.
Tucker: We're going to talk about your class for the Mises Academy, on intellectual property. Kinsella: Yes, I'm looking forward to it. We've been planning it for quite a while, as you know. I think the first course will be on November 1st for six weeks and then we'll take a week off. We'll have time to go in depth into many of the issues about intellectual property and its relationship to libertarianism, economic theory, and various other areas. Tucker: Why is this an important issue? Kinsella: Well, it's becoming a more and more important issue as we've seen in our circles and as seen on the internet. Daily, we see horror stories and crazy examples of abuses of IP. People are starting to wonder if these are really abuses of IP or if there's something wrong with IP itself.
In the past, free-market economists and libertarians have sort of given this issue a pass. They took it for granted. It's been in a corner all by itself. Now people are wondering, and as we start looking more closely at it, we can see that a lot of the assumptions about IP have been wrong. Tucker: It's striking you mention the history of thought here and why this issue is sort of crystallizing in our time, especially with your pioneering monograph on that subject, Against Intellectual Property.
It's generally true, isn't it, that that theoretical element of economics or law or whatever catches up when the practical need for that new theory comes along. For example, the theory of money and credit was made necessary by the advent of central banking.
So, 50 years ago, IP wasn't that big a deal. Kinsella: I think that's completely true. Mises said something I've always loved. (Everyone focuses on a few of his statements that other people don't see, because he has so many great aphorisms and things.) He pointed out that in his view economics is purely deductive reasoning from a priori categories. Plus, then you explicitly introduce certain assumptions to make it interesting. [See my post Mises: Keep It Interesting.] "Interesting" was something I always focused on. So, in other words, we could talk hypothetically about a barter society forever, but it won't get us that far. So let's introduce the assumption that there is money in society. It's not a priori that there is money, but there could be money and, if there is, then certain things follow from it.
I think that likewise in libertarian theory certain things become interesting at a certain point. In the past, as you mentioned in your talk yesterday here at the Supporters' Summit, it was not as easy as it is now to replicate information. There was sort of a tie in previous times between a good that was produced, like a book, and the information in it. The information in the book was in the physical copy of the book, so you could easily find a way to sell that. Now, with information being so easy to copy —
And, of course, as Cory Doctorow mentions in one of his articles and speeches, do we think we are going to get to a point where it is going to get harder to copy and to spread information? No, it's only going to get easier.
These things have made people confront the issue of the morality an...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 332.
I appeared yesterday (Friday, April 23, 2021) on the World Crypto Network (Youtube channel) panel The Bitcoin Group #255, hosted by Thomas Hunt. The other panelists included the CryptoRaptor (Dan Eve; see video below); Ben Arc; and Josh Scigala of Vaultoro. We discussed a variety of topics, including—
Bitcoin Price Decline Deepens, Heads for Worst Week Since February Morgan Stanley Clients Hold Nearly $30M In Bitcoin Funds JPMorgan Sounds Urgent Alarm On Bitcoin Price ‘Momentum’ After $300 Billion Bitcoin And Crypto Sell-Off UK Court Agrees to Hear Copyright Lawsuit Brought by Self-Proclaimed Bitcoin Inventor Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk agree on bitcoin's green credentials
Other related links:
the Open Crypto Alliance, for which I serve on the Advisory Board Vijay Boyapati's upcoming book, based on his now-classic article "The Bullish Case for Bitcoin" (see this talk) My previous appearance at KOL323 | World Crypto Network: Announcing the Open Crypto Alliance to Protect Bitcoin, Blockchain and Crypto
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 331.
This is my appearance on Phil Gibson's podcast A Boy Named Pseu. Youtube video:
From Phil's shownotes: Stephan Kinsella is an attorney and libertarian writer. We discuss:
Libertarianism Patents Trademarks Intellectual Property Economics [See Knowledge vs. Calculation] Bitcoin and then some…
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 330.
Lift Talks #2 — With Kinsella & Sammeroff.
Two libertarian blokes on a ski vacation. Filmed Wednesday, March 31, 2021, Telluride Ski Resort.
Part 1: KOL329 | Lift Talks #1 With Kinsella & Sammeroff
Cross-posted on Scottish Liberty podcast.
Bonus video:
Three day skiing video compilation telluride March 2021
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 329.
Lift Talks #1 —Telluride March 2021 — With Kinsella & Sammeroff.
Two libertarian blokes on a ski vacation. Filmed Tuesday March 30, 2021, Telluride Ski Resort.
[Update: Tom Woods and Antony discuss his travels across American in Ep. 1895 Traveling Through COVID America]
Part 2: KOL330 | Lift Talks #2 With Kinsella & Sammeroff
Cross-posted on Scottish Liberty podcast.
Bonus video:
Three day skiing video compilation telluride March 2021
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 328.
This is my appearance on Heterodorx Episode 10: I.P. Everywhere!, hosted by Nina Paley and Corinna Cohn (posted March 29, 2021; recorded March 25, 2021). Nina is also on the C4SIF Advisory Board. From the shownotes (see also Nina's Facebook post): Get ready for some hardcore Libertarian nerd-talk, as Corinna goes head-to-head with Stephan Kinsella, author of Against Intellectual Property, and Libertarianism’s foremost critic of copyright and patents. Thrill to dazzling theories of labor vs. action, restrictive covenants, negative easements, burdened estates, nuisances, limitations, consent, redistribution of rights, triangular intervention, property, scarcity, value, allocation of contestable resources, conflict, trade secrets, the Patent Bargain, disclosure, distortion, abolishing the FDA…wait, what? By the end of the episode, Corinna suffers a long-overdue crisis of faith. SUCCESS!
Related links:
Stephan Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property C4SIF.org Resources http://c4sif.org/resources/ Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes Karl Fogel:The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World and https://youtu.be/mhBpI13dxkI Boldrin & Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly “Conversation with an author about copyright and publishing in a free society” (Harry Potter example) “Intellectual Property” as an umbrella term and as propaganda: a reply to Richard Stallman A Selection of Kinsella’s Best Articles and Speeches on IP
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 327.
I was asked some questions about intellectual property, and how you can sell something (like information, or ideas, or even your labor) if you don't own it, by Shea Fisker, a budding libertarian and fellow libertarian. He had just the right attitude. He listened and thought, and asked reasonable questions when he had an issue that puzzled him. Would that so many cocksure pro-IP libertarians, who really know almost nothing about IP law itself and the fundamentals of libertarian property theory, or even how to argue or discuss issues without being tendentious, equivocating, or question-begging.
Youtube below:
Here is the interchange which led to this discussion (lightly edited), along with related links:
Shea:
Hi Stephan, I’m interested in your work on IP. If someone is creating digital products, do you think it’s OK to sell them, even though they are neither non-rivalrous nor non-excludable, simply with IP removed from the picture? For example, I noticed most of your books are in physical form, embodying legit private property, but one of your books is available in Kindle and isn’t for free. Is the thought simply that selling such an informational, non-physical product is purely a voluntary, contractual exchange, and that it is only the stopping of people from freely sharing that good with others after that purchase (IP) that is wrong? There’s seemingly something tricky about even the selling of the thing, say a piece of software, when the creator could hardly be considered the owner of it in the first place. But, perhaps I am confusing something here, because to say someone couldn’t even sell a digital/informational product that they created, IP aside, seems akin to some sort of enforced communism. I hope that makes sense. I’d love to hear your thoughts. BTW, I’m from New Iberia and went to LSU in BR.
In one way, it is analogous to say, charging someone for consulting, which is simply the exchange of words, which one can’t be said to own. And to say one couldn’t legitimately (according to libertarian principles) sell a digital product at scale, would be equivalent to saying one must be forced to do all consulting publicly for the whole world to consume anytime that one tries to privately exchange a one-to-one service that isn’t physical.
So I think I aiming to clarify two things here and am somehow wrongly mixing them up: 1) the physical vs. non-physical; and 2) IP vs. selling. I am still not sure where the concept of ownership fits in here, but if we grant that selling of anything that doesn’t violate other peoples’ property is fine, then it shouldn’t matter whether the thing is scarce or not as to whether one can sell it for money. In other words, I could charge you $1000 for me to tell you “Hello” one time, if you consent to that exchange.
Not to overload you here straight out the gate, but in one of your PorcFest talks I just heard you say “Creation is not a source of property, it’s a source of wealth.” I think this point may be key in the issues I’m bringing up above.
Kinsella:
It would take me a bit to write up an answer. Tell you what, I'll be happy to explain it to you, but on a zoom call so I can record it and put it on my podcast, so others can hear the explanation....
In the meantime read this:
The “If you own something, that implies that you can sell it; if you sell something, that implies you must own it first” Fallacies Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value Locke on IP; Mises, Rothbard, and Rand on Creation, Production, and ‘Rearranging’ see p. 29 et pass of Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society “Intellectual Freedom and Learning Versus Patent and Copyright,” esp. the section "Creation of Wealth versus Creation of Property" and KOL062 | “Intellectual Freedom and Learning versus Patent and Copyright” (2010)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 326.
[Update: Transcript appended below]
Back on May 24, 2020, I appeared on the Scottish Liberty Podcast, with hosts Antony Sammeroff and Tom Laird. We discussed IP and related matters, including Sammeroff’s recent debate on the topic of IP with pro-IP Randian law professor Adam Mossoff. I was a bit drunk and it shows, and went off on a rant and was not as coherent as usual. The episode was entitled "Under the Influence... of Stephan Kinsella... Against Intellectual Property". We recorded a second episode on May 30, 2020, entitled "A Sober Conversation with Stephan Kinsella...," which was released as KOL289. I just realized I never posted the initial episode, so here it is, warts and all (unfortunately for fans of my drunken rants, I have quit drinking alcohol since I realized it's a destructive poison with no benefits at all, so this won't happen again).
Previous episode: KOL289 | Scottish Liberty Podcast: Discussing the Mossoff-Sammeroff IP Debate, Take 2: A Sober Conversation…
See various links, embeds, notes below.
Youtube of the current discussion:
Previous Youtube from KOL289.
Antony’s previous debate with Mossoff:
In his remarks, Mossoff mentioned this paper by Stephen Haber as supporting the empirical case for patents (funny, I thought the Objectivists had principles): Stephen Haber, “Patents and the Wealth of Nations,” 23 Geo. Mason L.Rev. 811 (2016). I have read through it as much as I can stand and provide my critical commentary here: “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright”–see in particular note 3 and accompanying text. ❧ Transcript Scottish Liberty Podcast: Discussing the Mossoff-Sammeroff IP Debate, Take 1: Under the Influence of Stephan Kinsella: Against Intellectual Property (May 21, 2020) [Transcript of "Scottish Liberty Podcast: Discussing the Mossoff-Sammeroff IP Debate, Take 1: Under the Influence..." (May 21, 2020)] 00:00:03
TOM LAIRD: Welcome to episode 155 of the Scottish Liberty podcast with me, Tom Laird and, of course, the man who can, Antony Sammeroff.
00:00:13
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: That’s me.
00:00:13
TOM LAIRD: And possibly the man who can, Stephen Kinsella, big hitter from the Mises Institute and patent lawyer extraordinaire, and there he goes.
00:00:25
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Author of Against Intellectual Property, a very influential book in the libertarian movement I have to say.
00:00:33
STEPHAN KINSELLA: The most intellectual book, and get my name right. Let’s say Stephan. Let’s say it. Okay, can you guys say with me Stephanie? Say it with me, Stephanie.
00:00:43
TOM LAIRD: Stephanie.
00:00:44
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay. Take off the E. Stephan.
00:00:47
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Stephan. Did you call him Stephen Kinsella? Did you call him – did you actually call him Stephen Kinsella in the intro?
00:00:55
TOM LAIRD: Who?
00:00:55
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yeah, he did. It’s fine. I’m used to it. I’m used to it.
00:00:59
TOM LAIRD: It you want it pronounced differently, spell it differently.
00:01:03
00:01:05
STEPHAN KINSELLA: You can’t blame someone’s mother – so this is the thing. You can’t blame their mother, man. You’ve got to – there’s boundaries.
00:01:13
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Well, I know. I blame my mom for tons of shit.
00:01:17
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Like what?
00:01:18
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I don’t know if I should say it publicly.
00:01:25
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, then don’t tease us. Come on.
00:01:27
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: My ex-girlfriend blamed my mom’s mom for tons of shit as well.
00:01:33
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Like what? Give me one example, just one.
00:01:36
00:01:39
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I don’t – right at the beginning of the show? There might be new listeners tuning from Twitter. I tell you what. They’ll have to actually start one of those websites where they vote.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 325.
This is my appearance on the Nate the Voluntaryist Livestream #202, released March 15, 2021 (Nate’s Bitchute channel). Shownotes: "Stephan Kinsella is back for more about Hoppe and who will succeed him in the world of Austrian economics, plus a Q&A."
Previous appearance: KOL311 | Nate the Voluntaryist Livestream #194: IP, the CDA, DMCA, Argumentation Ethics, and More
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 324.
I was on Aleks Svetski's show Wake Up, Ep. 37. Youtube:
From his shownotes:
Stephan Kinsella is a Patent Attorney in Texas, Austrian AnCap philosopher, writer & hands down one of the smarter & most well-read people I've ever spoken to.
In this ep, we discuss:
-
SK's Journey on Why or how he become a libertarian
-
Where Austrian Econ fit in?
-
A little about Bitcoin coming on the radar, and "fixing this".
We discuss consistency of thought, principles and ideas.
A little on Patent Law & Private property, although we'll probably do an Ep 2 in this.
We explore:
-
Rand's critique on Anarchy
-
Rand's support of IP
The difference between ownership & possession
-
Is Ownership is that which you can protect?
-
How do you prove initial possession?
-
How do you enforce ownership?
Are the rules & norms of a community or city a sort of constitution?
How do these rules scale across populations?
How do you synchronise those larger scale ideas with societies that have different values, ie; the Confucian east?
War is expensive only with sound money (Bitcoin fixes this)
We dig into a bit about private property rights from both the Lockean view & a more tangible viewpoint inspired by Hoppe.
"The entire point of property rights is to solve conflict."
And I ask the question:
Why are Libertarians not as widely thrilled about Bitcoin as one might expect them to be?
There was a series of books that Stephan also mentioned.
I've listed them here for you:
Walter Block: I chose liberty
- Assortment of stories about how people became libertarians.
Randy Barnett
- The structure of Liberty
Hoppe
-
A theory of Socialism & Capitalism
-
Economics & ethics of Private property
Mises:
- Ultimate foundation of economic science
Rothbard:
-
The logic of action 1 & 2
-
Economic controversies
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 323.
Jed Grant and I appeared on the World Crypto Network channel with host Thomas Hunt to discuss the looming patent threat to bitcoin. Jed is Founder of the Open Crypto Alliance, for which I serve on the Advisory Board.
Shownotes:
Patents help protect the intellectual property of inventors and creators, but on occasion those same creators choose to make their works available to everyone, free of charge. Unfortunately, some predatory entities, known as patent trolls, prey on the users of these technologies through the civil courts. Their latest target? Cryptocurrency and blockchain technology, which is why blockchain industry leaders and legal experts – including today’s guests, Stephan Kinsella & Jed Grant – have come together to form the Open Crypto Alliance, a group dedicated to preserving cryptocurrency & bitcoin technology’s open-source origins.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 322.
From the Bitcoin Within The Legal System event, part of the Crypt0Events “Future IS Crypto!” Webinar Series (February 25, 2021). Jed Grant and I discussed the looming patent threat to bitcoin. Jed is Founder of the Open Crypto Alliance, for which I serve on the Advisory Board. Eleonore Blanc was also on the panel.
Video below:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 321.
This is my appearance The Tatiana Show, episode 296, with host Tatiana Moroz, in which Jed Grant and I discussed the looming patent threat to bitcoin. Jed is Founder of the Open Crypto Alliance, for which I serve on the Advisory Board. Tatiana’s shownotes below. The Youtube video is here:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 320.
From my recent appearance on Stephan Livera’s bitcoin-focused podcast, SLP249 BITCOIN PATENTS & OPEN CRYPTO ALLIANCE WITH STEPHAN KINSELLA AND JED GRANT (recorded Feb. 2, 2021; released Feb. 5, 2021).
[Update: See transcript here, and appended below]
From the show notes: Stephan Kinsella and Jed Grant join me to chat about Open Crypto Alliance. We talk:
Why IP laws are anti-liberty and anti-progress How progress has been delayed by improper concepts of property rights How Patent laws could hinder the Bitcoin industry The asymmetry of attack vs defense here How to stop overly broad patents How to support OCA
Guest links:
Site: https://www.opencryptoalliance.org/ Stephan twitter: @NSKinsella Jed twitter: @JediGrant
Prior episodes:
SLP15 – Intellectual Property, Bitcoin, and Internet Censorship, with Stephan Kinsella SLP211 Steve Lee – Bitcoin Grants, Design & Crypto Patents (COPA)
Transcript Podcast Transcript:
dcasStephan Livera:
Stephan and Jed, welcome to the show.
Jed Grant:
Thank you. Thanks for having us.
Stephan Kinsella:
Thanks Stephan.
Stephan Livera:
Today. We’re going to talk a little bit about intellectual property and what it means in terms of Bitcoin and property rights as well. I think many listeners of the show are libertarians themselves, but not all of them. And so I think it might be good. Well, firstly let’s talk, let’s hear a little bit about each of you just a little bit on your background. Jed, if you want to start?
Jed Grant:
Sure. Yeah, I’m a technologist I’ve been in tech. Well, since the eighties, when I got my hands on an Apple II and started writing code I’ve always been interested in cryptography. Somewhat of a cypherpunk, ended up at NATO running their deployment of TCP IP in the nineties and been an entrepreneur for the last 20, 22 years, more or less and focused on, on security and crypto and technology in that space. So Bitcoin is something that I’ve been following since basically when the white paper came out as a novelty and really liked the tech and want to see it change the world. So that’s sort of my focus. For my professional side. I run a company called KYC 3 and I set out to change the way we do KYC because it’s fundamentally broken. So somewhat similar to what Stephan’s going to say. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m a KYC guy, but I’m anti KYC. So there you have it.
Stephan Livera:
And Stephan, just for listeners who maybe they haven’t heard you before. Can you tell us a little bit about yourself?
Stephan Kinsella:
Sure yeah, I’m a patent attorney in Houston and Texas, I’m from Louisiana originally and I’m a libertarian and I’ve been interested in libertarian theory and intellectual property stuff for a long time now. And got interested in Bitcoin when it came out and started buying it when I lost a bet to Vijay Boyapati, because I thought in 2012 that the government would kill it. So I lost that bet had to buy some Bitcoins to pay them off. So I bought some for me at the same time. So those Bitcoins are now worth 90,000 or now, $120,000 that I gave him.
Stephan Livera:
Yeah, that’s great. Vijay our mutual friend, he’s a regular guest on my show. And for listeners who aren’t familiar, Stephan is a really leading thinker in the libertarian world especially in the areas of intellectual property. And also just generally in terms of private property theory and explaining some of the thought of some of the leading lights of the Austrian libertarian world, such as Hans Hoppe and others. I think maybe we can start there as well, because I think for some people they might not be as familiar with this way of thinking and they might be thinking, well, hang on. I thought these people put in work to create intellectual property. So why shouldn’t that also be respected as a quote unquote private property, right?
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 319.
This is Part II of my appearance on Keith Knight’s Youtube show “Don’t Tread on Anyone” (Feb. 3, 2021), discussing my “Libertarian Litmus Test” post on Facebook. In this second hour or so of our discussion, we covered "Logic, Exploitation, Homesteading, & Freedom", and other issues (see below). See also KOL318 | The Libertarianism Litmus Test, Part 1 – With Keith Knight, “Don’t Tread on Anyone”.
Time-markers:
0:00 - Logic v. Empiricism / Deontologicalism v. Utilitarianism 10:29 - Exploitation debate 11:34 - Who are the libertarian allies? 13:45 - Homesteading aka Original Appropriation 18:33 - Should I have to work to live? 21:52 - Personal v. Private property 32:05 - Socialist shortages 36:32 - Labor Theory of Value 50:05 - Order Givers v. Order Followers 1:00:53 - What is freedom?
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 318.
This is my appearance on Keith Knight’s Youtube show “Don’t Tread on Anyone” (Feb. 3, 2021), discussing my "Libertarian Litmus Test" post on Facebook:
Time to update the libertarian litmus test:
To be a solid libertarian, you must be good on the following (ranked roughly in order of importance/obviousness):
- IP
- central banking/the Fed
- taxation
- the drug war
- war
- welfare
- government education
- the state (anarchist)
- and now, covid lockdowns (no offense, paranoid and "respectable" libertards)
I'll let you slide on one issue ("one deviation"), but one only. But you miss two, and you're relegated to Time Out.
Youtube embedded below. See also KOL319 | The Libertarianism Litmus Test, Part 2 – With Keith Knight, “Don’t Tread on Anyone”
Time markers:
0:00 - What is libertarianism? 2:19 - Intellectual Property 6:07 - History of IP 13:05 - Central banking 16:11 - Taxation 18:06 - Drug war 20:30 - War 22:39 - Welfare 24:28 - State education 27:54 - The state 31:12 - Lockdowns 34:09 - A Proper understanding of socialism and capitalism 43:35 - Most important contributions of….
Carl Menger Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk: Shorter Classics - chapter II, "WHETHER LEGAL RIGHTS AND RELATIONSHIPS ARE ECONOMIC GOODS" Ludwig von Mises -- UFOES F.A. Hayek -- not a big fan Murray N. Rothbard- Economic Controversies Walter Block Lew Rockwell -- The Free Market Reader
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 317.
This is my appearance on Decentralized Revolution (the LP Mises Caucus podcast), episode 46, with host Aaron
Harris. We discussed the Libertarian Party, IP, the incoming Biden administration, the GameStop/Robinhood story, and the work of Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 316.
At the prodding of Peter Schiff's son, who, unlike his dad, is anarchist, pro-bitcoin, and opposed to intellectual property, I had a discussion with Peter about IP. Didn't fully succeed in converting him to the anti-IP cause, but made a bit of headway. We also talked a bit about bitcoin, and the Saipan and Puerto Rico tax breaks available to Americans. It begins a bit abruptly, since we were chatting initially before I had started on the IP topic and we began talking about bitcoin, and it didn't seem like it was going to quickly end, so I hit record and we talked about bitcoin before getting around to IP and a few other topics like defamation, Saipan, etc.
Additional resources:
Kinsella, Intellectual Property and Libertarianism“ ———, “Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright” (Oct. 23, 2012) ———, “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright” (Oct. 23, 2012) Boldrin & Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly Boldrin and Levine: The Case Against Patents The Effects of Patent and Copyright on Hollywood Movies
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 315.
This is my appearance on the Rollo & Slappy Show Episode 236 – The Libertarian Analysis of the GameStop Short Squeeze and Fallout with Silent Cal, JW Weatherman, and Stephan Kinsella.
"There have been plenty of hot takes on what went down with the GameStop short squeeze by Wall Street Bets traders from Reddit and the fallout following the actions of Robinhood. It can get pretty technical, so we brought three guests, Silent Cal, JW Weatherman, and Stephan Kinsella, on to the show to unpack what happened and how we might analyze it from a libertarian perspective."
We talked about bitcoin after recording stopped, JW and I trying to sell Silent Cal on it.
Items mentioned Silent Cal’s Twitter thread Episode 177 – Stocks, Dumb Money, and Bitcoin Yeticold.com
Follow the guests Silent Cal JW Weatherman Stephan Kinsella
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 314.
This is Episode 28 of The Bitcoin Standard Podcast, in which Jed Grant and I guest-lectured on the topic of intellectual property and bitcoin, for the course “Principles of Economics II, conducted by Dr. Saifedean Ammous, author of The Bitcoin Standard, for The Bitcoin Standard Academy (Jan. 21, 2021). Jed is Founder of the Open Crypto Alliance, for which I serve on the Advisory Board.
The video is here and Youtube below.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 313.
This is my appearance on Voluntaryist Haven, fielding various questions from Zane Mooneyhan and others, about argumentation ethics and other matters.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 312.
Back in 2013, Michael Shanklin posted a Youtube video, Anarchy Rising: Part 2, and asked other libertarian anarchists to send in a short video response on why they are a voluntaryist or libertarian. I believe he was going to use the submitted videos in some kind of montage. He never did the montage AFAIK and he made his video private for some reason—a habit annoyingly common among libertarians: they publish some articles or other content for years, and then later they take it down or demand that the publisher take it down, when they are applying for a job or something (sometimes later, they change their mind and pester the poor publisher again and ask him to "put them back up"). Yeah. You're so important. Whatever.
Anyway, I did a video response while taking a walk one morning. It's only 5 minutes but provides a brief summary of how I view libertarianism. I had forgotten about it but just received a recent comment by one Steven Barendregt: "7 years later and I think this video is still the best BRIEF explanation of libertarianism that I've ever seen. Truly underrated video." So I decided to add it to my podcast feed here in case anyone else finds it of interest. Enjoy.
Previous podcast episodes with Shanklin (whom I believe has since defriended me, because I was not a radical enough lifestyle libertarian or activist or some stupid libertard serioso shit like that):
KOL 043 | Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast, with Michael Shanklin: Bitcoin, Legal Reform, Morality of Voting, Rothbard on Copyright KOL 025 | Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast, with Michael Shanklin: Intellectual Property, Ron Paul vs RonPaul.Com, Aaron Swartz, Corporatism.
Other video replies to Anarchy Rising: Part 2:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 311.
This is my appearance on the Nate the Voluntaryist Livestream #194, from Jan. 5, 2021 (Nate's Bitchute channel). We discussed intellectual property, section 230 of the CDA and the DMCA, argumentation ethics, and Q&A from the audience.
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/nKZOQk-iqpI
Nate's streaming audio:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 310.
This is my appearance on the Nate the Voluntaryist Livestream #154, from Aug. 27, 2020 (his Bitchute channel). I forgot to mirror it on my stream last year, so remedying that now. Apparently, according to the show notes, we discussed "argumentation ethics, property rights, Hoppeanism, and more!"
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Fp4kpsBFo7ek/
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 309.
This is my appearance on the Nate the Voluntaryist Livestream #81, from Jan. 7, 2020 (his Bitchute channel). I forgot to mirror it on my stream last year, so remedying that now, though I don't recall what we discussed. Surprise episode!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Fp4kpsBFo7ek/
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 308.
This is my appearance on John Stossel’s Fox Business News show, Stossel, back on Jan. 30, 2015. I just realized I had never put it here in my podcast feed, so here it is. The full episode is streamed below (I recommend also my friend David Koepsell's segment); my audio clip is included in this podcast episode. Discussed further in KOL171 | With Albert Lu Discussing Stossel and IP.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 307.
This is my appearance on the Ernie Hancock “Declare your Independence” show for Dec. 17, 2020 (Hour 2). We discussed Intellectual Property in the Internet era, and related matters.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 306.
Jeremiah Harding, interviewed me last night for his Youtube channel Jeremiah Talks, about various bullshit arguments for IP and confused libertarians who call us "commies" for opposing IP socialism.
Video coming soon.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 305.
I appeared today on the Disenthrall.me Youtube channel, host Patrick Smith, along with Keith Knight. We discussed whether social media bans and censorship is a breach of contract, and related issues.
Related material:
A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 The Libertarian View on Fine Print, Shrinkwrap, Clickwrap (May 8, 2009) The “If you own something, that implies that you can sell it; if you sell something, that implies you must own it first” Fallacies, StephanKinsella.com (June 2, 2018) Rothbard on the “Original Sin” in Land Titles: 1969 vs. 1974 (Nov. 5, 2014)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 304.
I was a guest on The Liberty Weekly Podcast Ep. 136, with host Patrick MacFarlane (Nov. 1, 2020). From his shownotes: The Great Stephan Kinsella joins me to discuss balancing the practice of law with scholarly pursuits, the future of libertarianism, and his forthcoming book “Law in a Libertarian World.”
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 303.
This was my appearance on the Free Thought Project Podcast: How IP Laws are the Antithesis of Liberty & Innovation, from Oct. 31, 2020. From their shownotes: On this week’s episode of the Free Thought Project Podcast, Jason, Johnny, and Matt talk with Libertarian Figurehead, Stephen Kinsella. Stephan Kinsella is an American intellectual property lawyer, a Libertarian writer and speaker, Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom. Kinsella is a leading anti-IP libertarian theorist, author of ‘Against Intellectual Property’ and has had work published in Mises Daily Article, The Journal of Libertarian Studies and the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.
In the podcast we cover the basics of intellectual property, the misconceptions attached to them and how IP laws are the opposite of innovation. We also talked about Covid-19 vaccines patents, the evolution of meme culture, social media censorship using Copyright and IP laws, Bitcoin’s potential, how future technology will evade government regulations, 3D printing, voting, the 2020 election and if Mr Kinsella is an iPhone or Android user.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 302.
From The Human Action Podcast, Oct. 23, 2020, with Jeff Deist, discussing Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed, chapters 5-8.
Transcript below.
From the Mises.org shownotes: Lawyer and libertarian theorist Stephan Kinsella joins the show to discuss the middle chapters of Hoppe's Democracy, The God That Failed—in particular dealing with "desocialization" of collective property, immigration, and free trade. These are the most controversial and widely-discussed parts of the book, and Kinsella provides a fascinating analysis of property vs. wealth, the problems with public ownership and forced integration, and the concept of rule-setting for state property. And don't miss the final part of the show for his explanation of "Hoppephobia." Kinsella's article on LewRockwell.com: www.lewrockwell.com/2005/09/stephan-kinsella/a-simple-libertarian-argument/ Read Stephan Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property at Mises.org/KinsellaBook Use the code HAPOD for a discount on Democracy: The God That Failed from our bookstore: Mises.org/BuyHoppe
Mises Institute original video:
Jeff Deist and Stephan Kinsella on Hoppe’s Democracy Transcript 00:00:03
JEFF DEIST: This is Jeff Deist, and you’re listening to the Human Action podcast. Hey, ladies and gentlemen, thanks so much for joining us, and welcome back once again to the Human Action podcast, a show we do every week where we are not afraid of books, even the 900-page books. And that’s really what the show is all about is working our way through what we consider important or seminal works in the broad, let’s say, Austro-libertarian landscape, and then by doing so, hopefully encouraging you to read these books, to tackle these books and also helping you through them as you go.
00:00:38
So that’s the goal, and as you know, we have recently started with Hans-Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed, and we chose this purposely because we had three weeks left until the election, so we’re breaking it up into three sections. And last week we were lucky to be joined by my friend, Jayant Bhandari, and we had a great talk about things like time preference and civilization and capital at the beginning of that book. And in the mid part of this book where Hoppe gets into the discussion of centralization and trade and immigration, I thought there would be nobody better to invite on the show than Stephan Kinsella with whom most of you are already familiar no doubt.
00:01:19
He is a patent attorney. He has written extensively on not just libertarian theory but I would say more narrowly libertarian legal theory, which is a bit of a different animal. And also, of course, he’s perhaps best known for his work on IP, and we will link to at least one article of his, which we shall discuss during the show. We will link to his book, Against Intellectual Property, at the mises.org site. If you haven’t read it, and you – or maybe you don’t have developed thoughts about IP in the digital age, you should read it. You can read it easily over a weekend, and I very much encourage you to do so regardless of where you fall on that debate. I – my personal feelings are in line with Kinsella on that topic, by the way. So all that said, Stephan, thanks for joining.
00:02:08
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Glad to be here, Jeff.
00:02:09
JEFF DEIST: Well, I want to ask you before we get into the book, it came out in 2001. Unfortunately, the Mises Institute doesn’t own this book, wish we did. So where were you? What were you doing in 2001? Where were you living? How did you become aware of Hoppe or this book?
00:02:25
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Oh 2001. That’s a good question. I remember that because that was the year of 9/11. I was back in Houston. I’m from Louisiana. I had moved to Houston as a lawyer in 1992 and moved to Philadelphia in ’94 and been there for a few years and moved back to Houston. And I remember in 2001,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 301.
This is my appearance on the Tales from the Crypt bitcoin podcast, Episode 195, with host Marty Bent. From his shownotes: Join Marty as he sits down with Stephan Kinsella to discuss: - State's rights - The Lockdowns - The Constitution - The Government v. The State - Bitcoin didn't ask for permission - Are leftists insane? - Should you vote? - Smart contracts - much more
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 300.
This is my appearance on Keith Knight’s Youtube show “Don’t Tread on Anyone” (Sept. 17, 2020), discussing a hodge-podge of issues. We talked previously in 2017. Youtube embedded below.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 299.
https://youtu.be/ULLKItpCiBA
This is my appearance on the Law of Liberty Podcast, #7 (Sept. 12, 2020). From their shownotes: "In this episode, we were honored to have a long conversation with Stephan Kinsella! Stephan is a patent attorney and libertarian legal theorist. His website is https://www.stephankinsella.com/ and you can find him on Twitter @NSKinsella - We suggest for all of our listeners to check out his work!
We hit a lot of different topics in this conversation, some new and others which we've talked about in previous episodes. If you like the show, give us a follow @LawOfLibertyPod, @HoffFunk, and @StrattyD
The opening music we used is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otD-XbAhMbU"
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 298.
This was my appearance on We Are Libertarians, host Chris Spangle, Ep. 457, part of their "Path to Libertarianism" series. From their shownotes:
"Chris Spangle speaks to scholar Stephan Kinsella about his path from Objectivism to anarcho-capitalism, why intellectual property laws conflict with property rights, and gives an excellent overview of Austrian Economics."
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 297.
This is my appearance on Guy Swann's Bitcoin Audible podcast, Chat#46. From his shownotes: Stephan Kinsella joins us today for a fascinating discussion on the morality and concept of property in the digital age. Is it possible to own Bitcoin? Do we legally own it, or are we simply the ones in control via the rules of the Bitcoin system?
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 296.
This is an appearance on Timo Virkkala's LocoFoco Netcast. We had a rambling discussion about libertarianism etc. (see my previous episode with him at KOL291 | LocoFoco–NOT talking about “legal positivism”).
https://soundcloud.com/locofoco-net/my-peeps-stephan-kinsella-on-todays-libertarians-1
Update: Youtube version:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 295.
This is my appearance on Jimmy Song's podcast Bitcoin Fixes This (ep. 7).
Bitcoin Fixes This #7: Intellectual Property
Stephan Kinsella is a patent attorney, Austrian economist and author of Against Intellectual Property. We talk about IP law’s monarchist origins and how it’s a tool for monopoly. Stephan also tells us about how information is not the same thing as physical property and how IP and Bitcoin both suffer from labor theories of value.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 294.
This is my appearance on the Burning Boots podcast, ep. 53. We had lots of fun. From their shownotes: We have Stephan Kinsella on this week to hang out and joke around then we get into some more thought provoking topics and questions for him from the listener mailbag! He's one of the most prominent Hoppeans around right now and frankly we found him to be a little under-educated for our prestigious intellectual podcast, but hopefully you can forgive him anyway. Follow him, read him, listen to his podcast, and definitely listen to his debates because they usually rock.
Before we bring Kinsella on though, we take about 30 minutes to talk about the state of Kenosha and the collapse in general and Davie tells us about how the doctor that cut his balls off might secretly be based.
Burning Question for this week: Can property be implicitly abandoned?
Outro song this week (chosen by Stephan) is The Eagle Has Landed by Saxon
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 293.
This is my discussion with my old friend and colleague, patent lawyer Steve Mendelsohn, about faith and free will and related issues, some of which are discussed in his book Shallow Draughts: Faith in the Absence of Free Will (2017) (PDF of this book and his most recent one posted here [Shallow Draughts] and here [Sequitur] with his permission). (Steve and I worked as patent lawyer associates together from about 1994-96 or so in Schnader Harrison in Philly.)
Yes, yes, I know I normally talk only about libertarian legal theory, or, mostly, IP, and try to avoid discoursing about topics I don't think I'm an expert on ... like faith, concept formation, knowledge theory, free will, compatibilism, and the like, but, hey, what the hell. Caveat listener!
Youtube version embedded below.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 292.
This was my appearance recently on a Brazilian podcast. I believe they are adding subtitles in Portuguese. For now, here is the audio, and the current version of the youtube video is below. Their shownotes (roughly translated):
"Visconde de Mauá Study Group
The Libertarian Study Group of Fortaleza, Visconde de Mauá, is pleased to present a lecture with another of the great names of Libertarianism in the world, the Author and lawyer Stephan Kinsella.
At this event, we discussed ideas about what it means to be a libertarian and its practical application in everyday life.
Kinsella is the author of an extensive work on libertarianism including the works: Estoppel: A New Justification for Individual Rights, New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Theories of Law and What is Libertarianism. which have become essential works for understanding libertarianism, especially in their application in law, these works are extremely relevant!"
Youtube below:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 291.
This is my interview by (really: discussion with) my old friend and underappreciated stalwart libertarian thinker and writer Timo Virkkala. This is one of the early episodes of his new podcast, LocoFoco, and were were apparently going to talk about legal positivism and perhaps argumentation ethics, but we got detoured onto tangents for almost two hours, about a variety of issues--covid, riding dirt bikes, and so on. Good guy. Very smart. Underappreciated. Check out his new podcast, LocoFoco.
https://soundcloud.com/locofoco-net/not-talking-about-legal-positivism-with-stephan-kinsella
Update: the raw feed was a video skype, which Timo edited for his podcast. The raw video is posted below, in which you can briefly see my new poodle puppy Bella Kinsella:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 290.
This my appearance on the Liberty412 podcast, with host Mike Cuneo. We discussed a variety of topics, from the philosophy of property rights and the problem with IP, to coronavirus, racism, the prospects of liberty and anarchy, activism, and the like. We also detour into other issues like the Fermi Paradox and theories about the Industrial Revolution.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 289.
[Update: Transcript appended below]
This is my appearance on the Scottish Liberty Podcast from May 30, 2020, with hosts Antony Sammeroff and Tom Laird. We discussed IP and related matters, including Sammeroff's recent debate on the topic of IP with pro-IP Randian law professor Adam Mossoff. See various links, embeds, notes below. This was the second take, and entitled "A Sober Conversation with Stephan Kinsella...," because we had previously recorded a discussion on May 24, 2020, in which I was a bit drunk and went off on a rant. The episode was entitled "Under the Influence... of Stephan Kinsella... Against Intellectual Property". We then recorded this current episode on May 30, 2020.
[Update: I recently (March 2021) realized I never posted the initial episode, so have just posted it as KOL326 | Scottish Liberty Podcast: Discussing the Mossoff-Sammeroff IP Debate, Take 1: Under the Influence…]
See various links, embeds, notes below.
Youtube of the current discussion:
Youtube of the initial discussion, now posted at KOL326:
Antony's previous debate with Mossoff:
In his remarks, Mossoff mentioned this paper by Stephen Haber as supporting the empirical case for patents (funny, I thought the Objectivists had principles): Stephen Haber, "Patents and the Wealth of Nations," 23 Geo. Mason L.Rev. 811 (2016). I have read through it as much as I can stand and provide my critical commentary here: “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright”--see in particular note 3 and accompanying text. ❧ Transcript Scottish Liberty Podcast: Discussing the Mossoff-Sammeroff IP Debate, Take 2: A Sober Conversation With Stephan Kinsella (May 30, 2020) [Transcript of "Scottish Liberty Podcast: Discussing the Mossoff-Sammeroff IP Debate, Take 2: A Sober Conversation (May 30, 2020)] 00:00:01
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Greetings people of planet Earth. It must be episode 156 of the Scottish Liberty Podcast with me, Antony Sammeroff, and that ranty, ranty man, Tom Laird, back with us again.
00:00:15
TOM LAIRD: Thank you.
00:00:15
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Sorry.
00:00:16
TOM LAIRD: I’m free.
00:00:17
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: He’s free. The excellent, the extraordinary Stephan Kinsella. Don’t mispronounce it Stephen. Don’t be that guy. Don’t be that guy. Only an idiot would do that. Thank you for joining us.
00:00:33
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Glad to be here with all four of us. You said there was you, Antony Sammeroff, Tom, and me, so that’s four.
00:00:39
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Excellent.
00:00:41
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I only see three people though.
00:00:43
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: So we’re going to talk about – you only – for those tuning in on Facebook and YouTube see that I kind of look weird because I’m trying this digital background. But Zoom thinks that my face is part of the background, so I look…
00:00:57
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I think you’re triggering a lot of light-epilepsy people right now.
00:01:00
TOM LAIRD: I think it’s because your head looks like a planetoid.
00:01:02
00:01:04
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I am the moon, the orbits, the Earth.
00:01:07
STEPHAN KINSELLA: He looks like a Marvel character like Ego the Living Planet or something.
00:01:12
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: So I guess we’re going to talk about IP and stuff like that.
00:01:17
TOM LAIRD: Whoa.
00:01:17
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: That’s crazy. As some people know, probably heard a couple of weeks ago, I was debating this Adam Mossoff guy. And there may have been some conversation that we had once before, but we don’t talk about that anymore because…
00:01:32
TOM LAIRD: Did he laugh at any point during the…
00:01:34
00:01:37
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: But let’s just say that there were some things that could have been said in that discussion that we never speak of – we don’t talk about anymore that weren’t discussed.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 288.
Installment #2 in my impromptu Zoom session with whoever wanted to join. Got a bit more hang of how to record everyone in gallery mode, and so on. As last time, just a few of us talking random libertarian topics. Next time will give more advance notice and maybe have a slightly bigger audience.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 287.
I decided to try an impromptu Zoom session with whoever wanted to join, in part to test Zoom and my tech skillz. Just a few of us talking random libertarian topics. No big whoop. May make this a more regular thing once I get the hang of it.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 286.
This is my umpteenth appearance on The Tom Woods Show, "Ep. 1629 Kinsella on the Coronavirus, His Road to Libertarianism, and the Good and Bad in Ayn Rand". From Tom's show notes: Libertarian legal theorist Stephan Kinsella and I discuss his road to libertarianism (of the Rothbardian kind), where he thinks we need more work, the rights and wrongs of Ayn Rand, and more. And yes, some discussion of the virus…. Related links:
How I Became A Libertarian The Superiority of the Roman Law: Scarcity, Property, Locke and Libertarianism The Greatest Libertarian Books Hans-Hermann Hoppe on Anarcho-Capitalism Kinsella et al., International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution (Oxford, 2020) KOL197 | Tom Woods Show: The Central Rothbard Contribution I Overlooked, and Why It Matters (contract theory) The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory New Publisher, Co-Editor for my Legal Treatise, and how I got started with legal publishing.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 285.
I appeared today on the Disenthrall.me Youtube channel, host Patrick Smith, to discuss libertarian contract theory (Contracts with Stephan Kinsella). We talked about the standard legal view of contracts, the Rothbard-Evers title theory of contract, applications such as bitcoin "smart contracts" and intellectual property, the idea of breach of contract, liquidated damages clauses, and so on. (I was previously a guest -- KOL264 | Disenthrall: Stephan Kinsella on Tim Pool Subverse and Trademark.)
From Disenthrall's shownotes: "In response to a viewer request we bring you a deep dive into Libertarian contract theory. What are contracts? Why are contracts? What are NOT contracts?"
Patrick is apparently taking over Anarchast, on which I've been a guest in the past, so we may be doing an episode on that channel soon.
Related links:
Kinsella, A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 Kinsella, Reply to Van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 18, no. 2 (Spring 2004) Kinsella, Justice and Property Rights: Rothbard on Scarcity, Property, Contracts…, Libertarian Standard (Nov. 19, 2010) Rothbard, Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts Evers, Toward a Reformulation of the Law of Contracts KOL225 | Reflections on the Theory of Contract (PFS 2017) KOL146 | Interview of Williamson Evers on the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract KOL020 | “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society: Lecture 3: Applications I: Legal Systems, Contract, Fraud” (Mises Academy, 2011)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 284.
This is my discussion about patent and IP policy with a fellow patent attorney, Russ Krajec, who produces the "Patent Myth Podcast". I tried to persuade him patents are evil, or at least, understand why he doesn't agree.
Related resources:
KOL209 | Trying to Persuade a Patent Lawyer that IP Law is Evil KOL 051 | Discussion with a Fellow Patent Attorney Are anti-IP patent attorneys hypocrites? (April 22, 2011) Is It So Crazy For A Patent Attorney To Think Patents Harm Innovation? (Oct. 1, 2009) Patent Lawyers Who Don’t Toe the Line Should Be Punished! (Sep. 29, 2009) The Most Libertarian Patent Work (July 14, 2009) An Anti-Patent Patent Attorney? Oh my Gawd (July 12, 2009) Patent Lawyers Who Oppose Patent Law Pro-IP “Anarchists” and anti-IP Patent Attorneys
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 283.
This was my Webinar presentation at the Freedom Hub Working Group, Has Intellectual Property Become Corporate Welfare? (Wed., Feb. 19, 2020), organized by Jeff Kanter and Charles Frohman. From their shownotes: "Despite two decades of IP law practice for Big Oil and other clients, Stephan Kinsella earlier had been exposed to the great Murry Rothbard (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard) and wasn’t convinced the ancient property rights philosophy had room for intangible ideas - that maybe, he was in the middle of a gross example of corporate welfare that was killing entrepreneurship.
Founder and Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, former adjunct professor at South Texas College of Law, and author of “Against Intellectual Property” and “Law in a Libertarian World: Legal Foundations of a Free Society”, Stephan will present “Property Rights versus Intellectual Property”, and apply that lesson to how crony corporations abuse IP to squash competition and suppress innovation - with Big Pharma and the China “IP theft” as examples." The youtube and slides are streamed below. For related material, see my recent episode KOL282 | No, China Is Not “Stealing Our I.P.”
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 282.
From Free Man Beyond the Wall, Ep. 379, with host Pete Quinones:
Episode 379: No, China Is Not 'Stealing Our I.P.' w/ Stephan Kinsella
Feb 19, 2020 66 Minutes
Suitable for All Ages
Pete invited Stephan Kinsella to return to the show. Stephan is an American intellectual property/patent attorney, author, and anarcho-capitalist.
Pete asked Stephan to come on and share his opinion that China is in fact, NOT "stealing our I.P." Stephan gives a primer as to why intellectual property laws are immoral and devious and explains in detail the issue with I.P. and China.
Stephan's Anti-IP Books and Articles
Stephan's Articles and Speeches
The Case Against I.P. 0 A Concise Guide
How I.P. Hampers the Free Market
The I.P. Commission
USTPO and Commerce Dept. Distortions: I.P. Contributes 5 Trillion and 40 Million Jobs to the Economy
The Mountain of I.P. Legislation
Susan Houseman on Manufacturing - EconTalk
Independent Institute on the "Benefits of Intellectual Property
Link to Richard Grove's Autonomy Course
TakeHumanAction.com
Donate at the Libertarian Institute
Pete's Link to Sign Up for the LP
Lions of Liberty Podcast
Pete's Patreon
Pete's Books on Amazon
Pete's Books Available for Crypto
Pete on Facebook
Pete on Twitter
Below are some comments related to this topic which I sent a friend who had some questions about this issue:
Here are my thoughts on this matter. I've been thinking about, discussing, and wrestling with these issues for many months now. I have yet to read or speak to anyone who satisfies me that they have "the whole picture" so I have been forced to work without net, mostly.
First. Let's understand the basic background of American IP law--mostly, patent and copyright, but sometimes also less impactful variants such as trademark and trade secret (I would count defamation law too, but most legal scholars don't seem to see the connection). Copyright is rooted in censorship, and today is entrenched primarily in industries that think they rely on it--namely, the music and movie industry. Software is now also covered by copyright but oddly many software systems intentionally opt out of copyright through the use of various licenses. In any case, the publishing, music, and movie industry, the latter two largely based in the US, are huge lobbying forces to maintain or expand US copyright law--both domestically (such as with continual lobbying "by Disney" to keep expanding the term of US copyright, to keep Mickey Mouse from becoming public domain, such as with the Sonny Bono copyright term extension at in the 90s --to the point where copyright, originally 14 years [the term of two consecutive apprenticeships] is now life of the author plus 70 years--usually well over a century. And, they also push for the US to use its hegemony to force other companies to ratchet up their IP law to match US terms etc. Case in point: the US told Canada it couldn't participate in the TPP negotiations unless it increased its copyright terms, and Canada did so, by 20 years (in selected cases). Just for the privilege of negotiating in the TPP--which Trump nixed...
Similar things have happened with patent, which originated as crown-granted protectionism. Now many industries lobby to keep patent law alive too. Most of this lobbying pressure comes from US industries or western industries, such as hollywood and music and publishing houses in the case of copyright, and pharmaceutical industries in the case of patents. Even some Cato scholars were opposing free trade with Canada a decade or so ago--namely, the "reimportation" of drugs from Canada since they are sold at a lower price there, due to Canadian government price caps, and reimporting them back into the US would undercut Big Pharma's ability to sell at a high monopoly price in the US market. The whole thing is absurd.
In any case,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 281.
This is my appearance on the Death to Tyrants Podcast, Episode 90: Against Intellectual Property, with Stephan Kinsella (Facebook post), released Feb. 3, 2020, with host Buck Johnson. (I was previously a guest back in 2018--see KOL252 | Death to Tyrants Podcast: Human Rights, Property Rights and Copyright.)
From the Shownotes: This week, I feature my interview with Stephan Kinsella, the foremost expert on the topic of "intellectual property". Can you own an idea? How about a word? A pattern of words? How about a color? Stephan Kinsella is here to explain why intellectual property is illegitimate. This episode will cause you to think seriously about the topic. Give it a listen. I think you'll enjoy it!
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 280.
This is my appearance on the Fallible Animals podcast, Episode 12: Property Rights, Argumentation Ethics, and Praxeology with Stephan Kinsella (Apple podcasts; Spotify version; Youtube version embedded below), with host Logan Chipkin.
From Logan's shownotes: "Joining me today is patent attorney and libertarian theorist Stephan Kinsella. Mr. Kinsella is the author of the book, Against Intellectual Property, and is the founder and director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom. He is also the founder and editor of Libertarians Papers, and he’s a member of the Editorial Board of Reason Papers. We cover a wide range of specific topics, from property rights, argumentation ethics, whether or not praxeology is falsifiable, common arguments against the existence or morality of anarcho-capitalism, and potential connections between praxeology, free will, and constructor theory. Stephan Kinsella's website - https://www.stephankinsella.com Stephan Kinsella's Twitter - https://twitter.com/NSKinsella Mises: Keep It Interesting - https://mises.org/wire/mises-keep-it-interesting A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, Inalienability - https://mises.org/library/libertarian-theory-contract-title-transfer-binding-promises-inalienability-0 How We Come to Own Ourselves - https://mises.org/library/how-we-come-own-ourselves Against Intellectual Property - https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0 Twitter - https://twitter.com/ChipkinLogan Website - www.loganchipkin.com Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/Fallibleanimals "
See also Barry Smith, "In Defense of Extreme (Fallibilistic) Apriorism" (1996).
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 279.
I was interviewed a few weeks ago by a college student, Greta, who is working on an honor’s thesis covering libertarian thought in America. I am always happy to talk to young people--high school students, college and grad students, and the like, but when I take the time to give them answers, I often try to publicize it so that it can potentially reach more than one person. Great has interviewed other libertarians, including Bob Murphy, who featured his interview recently on his own podcast (see Ep. 83 A College Student Interviews Bob About How Libertarians View the World). So this inspired me to put up our discussion here on my own feed. I will say that I'm not necessarily happy with how I answered the question near the end about racism and sexism in modern American culture. But it was off the cuff, and I did what I could.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 278.
I was a guest on Episode 79 of The Bob Murphy Show, entitled "Stephan Kinsella and Bob Murphy Debate Hans Hoppe’s “Argumentation Ethics”. Back in June we discussed IP and related issues [KOL268 | Bob Murphy Show: Law Without the State, and the Illegitimacy of IP]. We had intended to discuss argumentation ethics but ran out of time. So we did it in this episode. I think it turned out very well.
[Update: Ep. 86 Further Thoughts on Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics and Essays on Praxeology ]
From Bob's show notes: By popular demand, Bob brings Stephan back on the podcast, this time to debate Hans Hoppe’s famous “argumentation ethics” case for libertarianism. Stephan defends Hoppe’s claim that any attempt to justify a NON-libertarian system would result in a performative contradiction, while Bob clarifies the argument and raises concerns about it.
Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
The YouTube video for this interview. Hans Hoppe’s talk on argumentation ethics at his Property & Freedom Society. The 1988 Liberty symposium on Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. Stephan Kinsella’s concise guide to Hoppe’s argument and its critics. Bob Murphy and Gene Callahan’s critique of argumentation ethics in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, and Stephan Kinsella’s response. Stephan’s earlier appearance on ep. 39 of the Bob Murphy Show, talking about private law and Intellectual Property. Help support the Bob Murphy Show.
See also:
“Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights,” in The Dialectics of Liberty (Lexington Books, 2019) Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics and Its Critics, StephanKinsella.com (Aug. 11, 2015) Lecture 3 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “The Social Theory of Hoppe” (slides here) Lecture 2 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society” (slides here) The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory, StephanKinsella.com (March 22, 2016) Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan, Anti-state.com (Sept. 19, 2002) “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide,” Mises Daily (May 27, 2011)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 277.
I participated in a debate sponsored by America's Future Foundation-Phoenix this past Thursday, Nov. 14, against local patent attorney Maria Crimi Speth. This is the audio from my iPhone. Probably inferior. I'll release better quality media if it becomes available later.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 276.
This is my speech delivered for the Troesh Talk, part of the Business Colloquium course, at the Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business at La Sierra University Nov. 12, 2019. I was invited by Associate Dean Gary Chartier, who runs the Colloquium. The audience consisted mainly of business and grad students.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 275.
This is my appearance in Episode 54 of the Did You Know Crypto Podcast, with host Dustin Dreifuerst. We talked about ownership of bitcoin and related issues. As Dustin summarized in his show notes:
Stephan and I talk about…
Ownership, Control & Property as Legal concepts Why you cant actually “own” Bitcoin How Bitcoin is about secrets not property Ownership is a state augmentation Why this isn’t an attack on Bitcoin
https://youtu.be/NQ2GOpMjzTo
(I previously appeared on this podcast: KOL266 | Did You Know Crypto Podcast, Ep. 36: Bitcoin Patent Trolling.)
For more information see this episode and related show notes: KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019).
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 274.
[Update: For an article based on the transcript, see "Nobody Owns Bitcoin," StephanKinsella.com (Sept. 20, 2019)]
This is my presentation to the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society on Sunday, Sept. 15, 2019. Powerpoint slides embedded below. Youtube embedded below.
Some related Q&A is in this session which was held later on the same day: Hülsmann, Kinsella, Dürr, Hoppe, Q&A (PFS 2019).
Related links/relevant material:
Konrad Graf, Are Bitcoins Ownable?: Property Rights, IP Wrongs, and Legal-Theory Implications [PDF] Preston Byrne, What do you legally “own” with Bitcoin? A short introduction to krypto-property On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse LeFevre on Intellectual Property and the “Ownership of Intangibles” The “If you own something, that implies that you can sell it; if you sell something, that implies you must own it first” Fallacies, “The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) “IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender The Limits of Libertarianism?: A Dissenting View KOL249 | WCN’s Max Hillebrand: Intellectual Property and Who Owns Bitcoin Cordato and Kirzner on Intellectual Property Mises on property KOL246 | CryptoVoices: Bitcoin as Property, Digital Goods, Personal Liberty, and Intellectual Property See other links at KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) My facebook post discussing ownership of Bitcoin Tom Bell: Copyright Erodes Property? Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, WSJ Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; Miami Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Not Money; Dismisses Money Laundering, Transmitting Charges How to handle bitcoin gains on your taxes SEC: US Securities Laws ‘May Apply’ to Token Sales Federal Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Real Money
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 273.
This is my appearance as a guest on Episode 302: "Stephan Kinsella Explains Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics", of the Free Man Beyond the Wall podcast, by host Pete Quinones (formerly known as "Mance Rayder"), hosted by The Libertarian Institute. From his shownotes:
Many libertarian/anarchists have heard of the concept of Argumentation Ethics as developed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe but have never looked to see what it’s all about.
Stephan Kinsella has studied AEs, applied it to his own work and even developed the thought process further. Here, he gives a lengthy explanation that can serve as your doorway into the subject.
Stephan is an attorney in Houston, director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, and editor of Libertarian Papers.
The A Priori of Argumentation
Longer Hoppe Video
Stephan’s Website
A Concise Guide to Argumentation Ethics
Indiegogo for The Monopoly on Violence
Pete’s Patreon
Pete’s Bitbacker Pete’s Books on Amazon
Pete’s Books Available for Crypto
Pete on Facebook
Pete on Twitter
See also:
“Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights,” in The Dialectics of Liberty (Lexington Books, 2019) Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics and Its Critics, StephanKinsella.com (Aug. 11, 2015) Lecture 3 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “The Social Theory of Hoppe” (slides here) Lecture 2 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society” (slides here) The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory, StephanKinsella.com (March 22, 2016) Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan, Anti-state.com (Sept. 19, 2002) “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide,” Mises Daily (May 27, 2011)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 272.
This is my appearance on the Ernie Hancock “Declare your Independence” show for Aug. 21 (Hour 2). We discussed defamation law and reputation rights, and some related matters.
Related links:
Rothbard, Knowledge, True and False Block, Defending the Undefendable, ch. 7 "The Slanderer and Libeler" David Kelley vs. Nat Hentoff on Libel, Youtube Kinsella, Reply to Van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 18, no. 2 (Spring 2004)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 271.
This is my appearance on Let's Talk ETC! #87 (June 24, 2019), with host Dr. Christian Seberino. From his shownotes: Stephan Kinsella is a Houston patent lawyer and libertarian advocate. He joins me for an informative discussion about libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism and related blockchain legal issues. Topics addressed include how blockchain technologies impact privacy, tax collection, copyrights, patents, obscenity laws and more.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 270.
This is my second appearance on The Corbett Report (Ep. 1453, 25 June 2019), with host James Corbett (from Japan):
Interview 1453 – Stephan Kinsella on Law Without the State Stephan Kinsella joins us today to discuss the concept of law without the state. Is law and order possible without a state? What would that look like? And just what is “the law,” anyway? Find out more in this fascinating conversation on law, history, philosophy and anarchy.
Related:
What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist, LewRockwell.com (Jan. 20, 2004) Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach (Feb. 3, 2009) Hoppe, Anarcho-Capitalism: An annotated bibliography, LewRockwell.com, December 31, 2001 KOL144 | Corbett Report Radio (2012)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 269.
My old friend Jack Criss, former libertarian AM radio talk show host from the 1980s and now a business journalist and publisher, throws his hat into the podcast ring. He interviewed me today. His episode page is here.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 268.
I was a guest on Episode 39 of the excellent podcast The Bob Murphy Show, discussing "Law Without the State, and the Illegitimacy of IP (Intellectual Property)". A few people have told me this particular discussion of IP was one of my best--thorough and systematic. No doubt aided by Bob's excellent prompting, questions, and guidance.
Bob and I had planned to also discuss argumentation ethics, but the discussion of IP ran longer than we expected so we'll save AE for next time. [Update: KOL278 | Bob Murphy Show: Debating Hans Hoppe’s “Argumentation Ethics”.]
From Bob's show notes: Bob talks with Stephan Kinsella about the basis of libertarian law, and how we could have justice without a coercive State. They then discuss Stephan’s pathbreaking work making the case that property must be in tangible things, rendering “intellectual property” an incoherent and dangerous concept.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 267.
I was a guest today on Sal Mayweather's "The Agora" podcast, ep. 48 (Soundcloud version below). From his shownotes: We discussed Craig's copyright application of the Bitcoin White Paper and whether they lend any credence to his claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto. Does a copyright application imply that CSW is actually Satoshi? Stephan also breaks down some of the torts Craig has filed against against various individuals who have said he isn't Satoshi and/or referred to him as a fraud. Can he use the courts to force individuals to recognize him as Satoshi? This is a great opportunity to learn the standard libertarian position on IP, the difference between a copyright and a patent & how it all applies to current crypto-community from the world's leading expert!
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 266.
This is my appearance in Episode 36 of the Did You Know Crypto Podcast, with host Dustin. We talked "about the possibility of using patents as an attack vector on Bitcoin." As Dustin summarized in his show notes:
Stephan and I talk about…
What is a Patent? Differences in EU/US & China Why is it so “hallowed” Open Source Software and patents What is a “Patent Troll” Craig Wright’s patents Can Bitcoin developers be sued?
https://youtu.be/_c2NxObY-O0 NOTES:
Stephan on Twitter Stephan’s website History of Patents Paris Convention Patent cooperation treaty Current (2019) US /China Tarriff dispute KOL234 | Vin Armani Show: Live from London: Kinsella vs. Craig Wright on Intellectual Property KOL267 | Sal the Agorist Interview: Bitcoin, Copyright, Craig Wright Tom Woods w/Stephan Kinsella – Ep 225 “Patents & Liberty” Tom Woods w/Stephan Kinsella – “Libertarianism & Intellectual Property” Article on Nchain Hiring Patent Lawyer
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 265.
This is my conversation with Jordan Head, who expressed some disagreement or confusion about my Against IP book on a Twitter thread; I offered to discuss with him, as I often do, and he took me up on it and consented to my recording it and posting it. His main hangup was my emphasis on "scarcity" and so he was thinking time was a scarce resource, so it's being "stolen" if others copy your products, etc. I think we made good progress. We briefly discussed a few unrelated issues, like Bitcoin maximalism.
Related:
KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender, Jul. 25, 2017
And:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 264.
I appeared today on the Disenthrall.me Youtube channel, host Patrick Smith, to discuss the trademark issues between Tim Pool and his company media Subverse, and StudioFOW which has a popular crowdsourced porn video game coming out also called Subverse. We touched a bit on bitcoin ownership, patent and copyright, defamation law, and trademark law, and related matters.
Related links:
Tim Pool talks Subverse, Studio FOW, and Trademarks StudioFOW "Subverse" Has Forced Me To Retain A Lawyer Over My Trademark Of The Same Name Subverse porn game kickstarter How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law Trademark versus Copyright and Patent, or: Is All IP Evil? The Patent, Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Horror Files
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 263.
This is my short portion of the panel presentation "The Significance of Hans-Hermann Hoppe," from the 2019 Austrian Economics Research Conference (AERC), at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on the occasion of Professor Hoppe's 70th birth year. The entire panel presentation, plus my notes, and a link to a longer talk on similar themes, are below.
Related: KOL259 | “How To Think About Property”, New Hampshire Liberty Forum 2019
“Hoppe on Property Rights” Panel: The Significance of Hans-Hermann Hoppe Auburn, Alabama • Mises Institute March 23 2019 Stephan Kinsella Kinsella Law Practice, Libertarian Papers, C4SIF.org NOTES
Came across Hoppe’s writing in law school, his 1988 Liberty article “The Ultimate Justification of the Private Property Ethic.” Eventually met Hans at a conference in 1994, where I also met David Gordon, Rothbard, Walter Block, Lew, and others Hans’s contributions in a large number of fields have influenced me and many others: argumentation ethics; various aspects of praxeological economics; method and epistemology; a critique of logical positivism; democracy; immigration; and various cultural analyses.
Helped change my mind about a large number of particular matters, such as the US Constitution, natural rights, and so on
Eventually led to Guido and I editing a Festschrift in 2009
Presented here 10 years ago Including a large number of contributors including all of the panelists here today I delivered a 6 week Mises Academy course in 2011 on “The Social Theory of Hoppe”
I’m going to focus on his views on property rights, which has greatly influenced my own ideas
A more in depth talk on this last month at New Hampshire Liberty Forum, “How to Think About Property Rights”, on my podcast feed
Laid out very plainly and concisely in Chapters 1 and 2 of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (1989)
Only 18 pages—bears re-reading and careful study
“Next to the concept of action, property is the most basic category in the social sciences. As a matter of fact, all other concepts to be introduced in this chapter—aggression, contract, capitalism and socialism—are definable in terms of property: aggression being aggression against property, contract being a nonaggressive relationship between property owners, socialism being an institutionalized policy of aggression against property, and capitalism being an institutionalized policy of the recognition of property and contractualism.” He lays out the “natural” position on property rights, and distinguishes it from property rights, the normative position.
Natural position is that each actor owns his body Any scarce resource is owned by the person who first appropriated it, or who acquired it from a previous owner by contract Property “rights” mirroring this natural position are then justified with his argumentation ethics, which has been very influential and also controversial in the libertarian world Echoed in Mises, Socialism: “the sociological and juristic concepts of ownership are different.”
Key to this analysis is recognizing the role of scarcity, which is inherent in human action, and which socially gives rise to the possibility of interpersonal conflict and thus the necessity for property norms to make conflict free interaction (cooperation) possible. Hans anchors his analysis in a Misesian praxeological framework, in which actors must employ scarce means or resources to achieve ends. In Mises’s praxeological view of human action, there are two distinct but essential components of human action: scarce resources, and knowledge.
Actors employ scarce resources, guided by their knowledge The use of resources is essential for all actors, even Crusoe
Gives rise to the “natural” position on property (what Mises would call “sociological” ownership)
In society,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 262.
This is a followup to my episode KOL261 | Venture Stories Podcast Debating Austrian Economics, Libertarianism, and Bitcoin with Noah Smith. I recorded some of my impressions after the show was concluded, making observations about how it went, and so on. Listen at your own peril!
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 261.
This is my appearance on the Venture Stories Podcast by Village Global, April 6 episode, hosted by Erik Torenberg: A Comparison of Austrian and Keynesian Economics with Noah Smith, Parker Thompson and Stephan Kinsella. It ended up being a bit of a debate with the other guest, Noah Smith of Bloomberg. This was a bit of an interesting episode, as I explain in the informal "bonus" episode KOL262. We ended up discussing/debating a variety of issues, such as: Austrian economics and praxeology, the business cycle, bitcoin, libertarianism, the federal reserve, anarcho-capitalism and related.
By the time we started the podcast I had forgotten it was not exactly for an already-libertarian or Austrian audience, and in fact the host seemed at first (off-air) to think I was the Irish economic journalist Stephen Kinsella (see Stephen Kinsella’s I am Not), and I had forgotten it was a debate and that Smith would be taking positions opposed to Austrianism and libertarianism. My performance was a bit subpar, but I did the best I could to present Austrian views even though I'm not a professional economist.
[I believe this was the show where I derisively referred to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as "Occasional Cortex," as I did also here, to the uncomfortable chuckles of the others, and the excised this from the published episode.]
From the show notes: On this episode Erik is joined by Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella), libertarian writer and patent attorney, Noah Smith (@Noahpinion), Bloomberg opinion writer, and Parker Thompson (@pt), partner at AngelList.
In a spirited debate, the three of them discuss the relative merits of Austrian economics vs. Keynesian economics.
They start out by defining the primary schools of economic thought and explaining where each of the guests sits on the spectrum of economic thinking. They talk about the value of empiricism when it comes to economics and whether economic theories can be derived from first principles.
They discuss inflation and whether centralized control of the money supply leads to better economic outcomes, as well as how one can determine these things in the messy real world. They also touch on a number of other topics, including whether it would be a good thing to get rid of the FDA and pharmaceutical patents, whether antitrust law is “unethical,” and whether the patent system is a net positive for society. Embedded:
Listen to "A Comparison of Austrian and Keynesian Economics with Noah Smith, Parker Thompson and Stephan Kinsella" on Spreaker.
Local copy.
Related:
Milton Friedman, Essays in Positive Economics Karl Fogel, The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World (see Youtube) KOL 038 | Debate with Robert Wenzel on Intellectual Property In response to one of Smith's comments about the origin of copyright, see Karl Fogel: "The first copyright law was a 1556 censorship statute in England. It granted the Company of Stationers, a London guild, exclusive rights to own and run printing presses. Company members registered books under their own name, not the author's name, and these registrations could be transferred or sold only to other Company members. In exchange for their government-granted monopoly on the book trade, the Stationers aided the government's censors, by controlling what was printed, and by searching out illegal presses and books — they even had the right to burn unauthorized books and destroy presses. They were, in effect, a private, for-profit information police force." Smith also claimed Robert Lucas and indeed many (most?) economists were for abolition of patents. I would love to see proof of this. Smith also seemed to deny that it's accepted in economics that minimum wage laws cause unemployment or that free trade is generally beneficial. Hunh? Smith seems to think that minimum wage might be justified if it only harms a few people but benefits most,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 260.
Libertarian Party Chair Nick Sarwark and I discuss a potpourri of libertarian issues, such as minarchy vs. anarchy, libertarian "centralism" and the Fourteenth Amendment, and applications to abortion, gay (same sex) marriage, civil asset forfeiture and the like.
https://youtu.be/RZi2xDWcSGo
Related links:
Timbs vs. Indiana (2019)--recent Supreme Court civil asset forfeiture case Supreme Court rules against highway robbery through asset forfeiture Another neo-confederate, xenophobic racist… Healy on States’ Rights and Libertarian Centralists; Healy versus Bolick and the Institute for Justice The Libertarian Case Against the Fourteenth Amendment The Embarrassing Fawning over the Criminal State by Regime Libertarians The Unique American Federal Government Various Kinsella posts criticizing "libertarian centralism"
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 259.
New Hampshire Liberty Forum, Manchester NH, Feb. 8, 2019.
[Update: transcript here.]
This is my main presentation at New Hampshire Liberty Forum, Feb. 8, 2019. Recorded on my iPhone. I'll upload a higher quality version later, if it becomes available.
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/asozCLV4FJ4
My Powerpoint that I used is embedded below:
Background:
KOL 037 | Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability Rothbard on the “Original Sin” in Land Titles: 1969 vs. 1974 (Nov. 5, 2014) “What Libertarianism Is”, see esp. n. 25 and accompanying text, regarding tracing title, in a property dispute, back to a common author (ancestor in title).
Bonus: I also appeared on the Vin Armani and Dave Butler (of Vin and Dave's Destination Unknown podcast) livestream of the Free State Project's New Hampshire Liberty Forum, Day 1 -- we discussed government versus the state, intellectual property, and related issues. It is here: KOL259-2 | Destination Unknown with Vin Armani and Dave Butler: Government vs. the State, Intellectual Property (New Hampshire Liberty Forum 2019).
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 258.
This is my debate at New Hampshire Liberty Forum, Feb. 7, 2019—really more of a roundtable discussion of immigration policy from a libertarian perspective. The other panelist was Daniel Garza, President of the LIBRE Initiative, and the moderator was Jeremy Kaufman. Some listeners may be surprised at my pro-immigration comments.
Transcript below.
https://youtu.be/9OWKh3yTyJ8
Recorded on my iPhone. I'll upload a higher quality version later, if it becomes available.
Related links:
I’m Pro-Immigration and Pro-Open Borders Switzerland, Immigration, Hoppe, Raico, Callahan KOL160 | Bad Quaker on IP, Hoppe, and Immigration Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “Immigration And Libertarianism” at Lew Rockwell My article Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders
TRANSCRIPT Liberty Forum Debate vs. Daniel Garza: Immigration Reform: Open Borders or Build the Wall? by Stephan Kinsella, Daniel Garza, and Jeremy Kaufman New Hampshire Liberty Forum, Manchester, NH (Feb. 7, 2019)
00:00:01
M: … something that we’ll find out through the course of this. Speaking tonight are, on my left-hand side, depicted by the convenient net placard I have in front of me, is Stephan Kinsella. You’re not talking to me, all right. Stephan Kinsella who is a patent attorney and leading libertarian legal theorist, the founder and director of the Center of the Study of Innovative Freedom and the Libertarian Papers. He’s a former adjunct professor at the South Texas College of Law. He’s published numerous articles and books in IP law, international law, and the application of libertarian principles to legal topics. You can give a hand for him if you want.
00:00:46
[clapping]
00:00:52
On my right, your left, Daniel Garza, president of the LIBRE Initiative. I have a very lot to say about him, but he’s asked me not to say all of it. So I will say that he held a couple of important positions for the Bush administration in the early 2000s, has also done important things for the Hispanic community for Televisa and Univision and is currently, as I already said, president of the LIBRE Initiative, lives in Mission, Texas with his wife and three children. Daniel Garza.
00:01:22
[clapping]
00:01:27
Moderating this will be Jeffrey Kaufman. I don’t have a bio written for him. I’m going to let you listen to him talk about himself and then field your questions. There is – for anyone who wants to participate in this, Jeffrey will give you the opportunity to do so. There’s a microphone at the back there, so that the panelists can hear you. Just find me back there, and I will let you speak, and thank you for coming. Thank you everybody. Off to you, Jeff.
00:01:52
[clapping]
00:01:57
JEFFREY KAUFMAN: Thank you. And I actually, since I see my purpose as moderator to be facilitating discussion and this has very little to do with me, I’m going to tell you nothing about myself, so we’ll just let that mystery remain. So my purpose is to facilitate these guys talking. This will – if I’m doing my job right, this will be the longest I talk in sequence for the entire night. I do my job to be making sure that they’re answering the questions that are asked. I am going to be trying to find areas of disagreement, so if there’s too much consensus, I’ll hopefully try to rile them up a little bit, and my job is to ask hard questions. There will also be, depending on how good my questions go, either some or a substantial amount of Q&A time from the audience.
00:02:37
So if you – as you’re listening to this, if you have questions, make a mental note of them, and there will be time to ask them at the end. That said, this – while this is a debate, it is not going to be a debate with a fixed resolution, so it’s going to be somewhat of a discussion aspect, although we will be seeking to find the areas of disagreement between our t...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 257.
I appeared recently on Peter Mac's show for the first time in several years. We talked about a variety of topics: education, law school, anarchy, careers, libertarian activism, and so on. This is Part 3 of 3.
Related:
Past, Present and Future: Survival Stories of Lawyers New Publisher, Co-Editor for my Legal Treatise, and how I got started with legal publishing
Previous appearances on Peter's show:
KOL 027 | The Peter Mac Show (2009, discussing IP) KOL057 | Guest on The Peter Mac Show: “Capitalism,” Anarchy, IP and other topics (2010) KOL128 | “The Peter Mac Show,” discussing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) (2012)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 256.
I appeared recently on Peter Mac's show for the first time in several years. We talked about a variety of topics: education, law school, anarchy, careers, libertarian activism, and so on. This is Part 2 of 3.
Related:
Past, Present and Future: Survival Stories of Lawyers New Publisher, Co-Editor for my Legal Treatise, and how I got started with legal publishing
Previous appearances on Peter's show:
KOL 027 | The Peter Mac Show (2009, discussing IP) KOL057 | Guest on The Peter Mac Show: “Capitalism,” Anarchy, IP and other topics (2010) KOL128 | “The Peter Mac Show,” discussing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) (2012)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 255.
I appeared recently on Peter Mac's show for the first time in several years. We talked about a variety of topics: education, law school, anarchy, careers, libertarian activism, and so on. This is Part 1 of 3.
Related:
Past, Present and Future: Survival Stories of Lawyers New Publisher, Co-Editor for my Legal Treatise, and how I got started with legal publishing
Previous appearances on Peter's show:
KOL 027 | The Peter Mac Show (2009, discussing IP) KOL057 | Guest on The Peter Mac Show: “Capitalism,” Anarchy, IP and other topics (2010) KOL128 | “The Peter Mac Show,” discussing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) (2012)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 254.
From TomWoods Ep. 1304 How I Got into Harvard. I interviewed Tom about this and related questions since my 15 year old son is nearing college age and I was curious. From Tom's shownotes: Stephan Kinsella, the libertarian theorist and author of Against Intellectual Property, asked me the other day about my college admission experience. We are each the parent of a tenth grader, so the topic of college comes up in our households. I didn’t think I had much interesting to say about it, but we decided he would in effect host this episode and ask me questions. The resulting conversation turned out to be great!
Read the original article at TomWoods.com. http://tomwoods.com/ep-1304-how-i-got-into-harvard/
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 253.
I spoke today on “A Libertarian’s Case Against Intellectual Property,” at the Federalist Society, University of Berkeley-California. It was well-organized and there was a perceptive and interesting critical commentary by Professor Talha Syed.
This is the audio I recorded on my iPhone; video below; line-mic'd audio here.
My speaking notes pasted below.
Youtube:
A Libertarian’s Case Against Intellectual Property Stephan Kinsella Kinsella Law Practice, Libertarian Papers, C4SIF.org UC-Berkeley Law School Federalist Society Oct. 11, 2018 General background: A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP
Intellectual Property:
Legal rights enforced by law having to do with products or creations of the mind, the intellect patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret semiconductor maskwork, boat hull designs, database rights, moral rights, right to one’s “likeness,” reputation rights (defamation, libel and slander, law) punishment for depicting religious figures in drawings “cultural appropriation”
Why IP?
Ayn Rand "Patents are the heart and core of property rights." … "Intellectual property is the most important field of law." US Commerce Dept. Study 2012 purporting to show that “intellectual Property-Intensive Industries” Contribute $5 Trillion, 40 Million Jobs to US Economy” [USPTO/Commerce Dept. Distortions: “IP Contributes $5 Trillion and 40 Million Jobs to Economy”] 2018 Nobel Laureate in Economics Paul Romer: economic growth — and the technological innovation it requires — aren't possible under perfect competition; they require some degree of monopoly power [patents] [Douglas Clement, Creation Myths: Does innovation require intellectual property rights?; Some studies: patent trolls alone cost $29 billion and total costs much higher globally ($1 Trillion/year, or more, given the “cumulative” effect of innovation) [Reducing the Cost of IP Law;Costs of the Patent System Revisited] US continually foisting higher patent and copyright protections on other countries via trade agreements and treaties, e.g. NAFTA, USMCA, TPP (“IP Imperialism”) Copyright distorts culture and threatens Internet freedom (censorship, takedown notices) [“Death by Copyright-IP Fascist Police State Acronym”; “SOPA is the Symptom, Copyright is the Disease: The SOPA Wakeup Call to Abolish Copyright,” “Where does IP Rank Among the Worst State Laws?”, “Masnick on the Horrible PROTECT IP Act: The Coming IPolice State” ]
It’s important to get this issue right I’m an IP lawyer and also a libertarian since high school (1982) [How I Became A Libertarian] My IP struggle: problems with Rand, researching the issue
Tom Palmer, Wendy McElroy, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Mises Finally realized IP is unjustified around the time I passed the patent bar (1994) Given my knowledge of IP law I spoke and wrote more and more on this topic, even though I’m more interested in other areas of libertarian legal theory
But I’ve found that sorting out this issue is crucial and helps sort out many other legal and policy issues
property and rights theory, Contract, fraud, causation and the law, and the nature and source of wealth and human prosperity [See my upcoming book, Law in a Libertarian World]
The question is not "Is IP a good idea?" or "What kind of IP protection should we have?" but rather What type of laws should we have; what laws are just, or justified?
Purpose of law and property
The question is not “is IP a good idea?” or “what kind of IP law should we have?” Garden of Eden
Scarcity, conflict [Hoppe, TSC, chs. 1-2; Of Private, Common, and Public Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization”] All rights are property rights [Rothard, Human Rights as Property Rights] Law is a set of rules enforcing property rights To permit conflict-free use of resources
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 252.
This is my appearance on the Death to Tyrants Podcast, Episode 33: Human Rights, Property Rights and Copyrights with Stephan Kinsella (Facebook post), released Oct. 1, 2018, with host Buck Johnson. From the Shownotes: One of my favorite interviews to date. We get into rights, property, self ownership and the philosophy behind these things. We then move into "intellectual property" and the case against copyright and patents.
This week I feature my interview with the brilliant Stephan Kinsella. We discuss the nature of rights as libertarians view them. We get into property rights, human rights, self ownership and why there is really no such thing as intellectual property. Stephan makes a strong case against copyrights and patents. Stephan's body of work can be found here: https://www.stephankinsella.com and here: http://c4sif.org Find us online at www.facebook.com/deathtotyrantspodcast Follow me on Twitter @buckrebel
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 251.
This is my appearance on Creative Juice, by Indepreneur, Episode66: EP66: The Shocking Case For Abolishing Copyright Laws w/ Patent Attorney Stephan Kinsella, Sep 28, 2018, with host Kyle Lemaire. We talked about a variety of matters, from the nature of property rights, Rothbard's view that all human rights are property rights, Locke's labor theory of property and the Marxian labor theory of value, the history and general nature of IP rights and why IP rights are incompatible with other property rights. This was a very fast-talking, dense episode with a lot of lecturing and talking from my end, but I think we covered a lot of ground, from the foundations of law and property rights to IP law.
Their shownotes: Since its beginning, the music industry has been under heavy government regulation: copyright laws control much of the economy of the music business. Today, there are many voices on the frontline arguing for the abolishment of all intellectual property, including copyright laws...
Stephan Kinsella is a Patent Attorney and advocate for IP Abolishment. On this episode of Creative Juice, Circa sits down with Stephan to discuss the little-known argument against intellectual property and how it may actually be harming independent artists and creatives.
"This is one of my favorite episodes of Creative Juice to date - I highly advise that you learn about this topic and take part in the discussion surrounding these laws. I believe this is one of the most important things to examine in our industry!" - Kyle "Circa" Lemaire
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 250.
This is the audio of my presentation to the 2018 PFS meeting on Saturday, Sept. 15, 2018. Powerpoint slides embedded below. Youtube embedded below.
Related material: see material linked in the above slides, including:
Kinsella, On the UN, the Birchers, and International Law KOL001 | “The (State’s) Corruption of (Private) Law” (PFS 2012) International Law MOOC (Youtube) Sovereignty, International Law, and the Triumph of Anglo-American Cunning | Joseph R. Stromberg Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Clarendon, 1994) Mark Janis, International Law (7th Ed. 2018) Restatement (Third) of the Law, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987), HeinOnline, Westlaw (not online) American Society of International Law (ASIL), Electronic Information System for International Law (EISIL)
https://www.asil.org/resources/electronic-resource-guide-erg and http://www.eisil.org/
M.N. Shaw, International Law (7th Ed. 2017) Ian Brownlie (Crawford), Principles of Public International Law (1966) (8th ed., 2012)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 249.
My appearance on Max Hillebrand's World Crypto Network show yesterday.
Other notes:
See other links at KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) My facebook post discussing ownership of Bitcoin Tom Bell: Copyright Erodes Property? Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator sd
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 248.
TEMP: http://traffic.libsyn.com/livera/SLP15_-_Stephan_Kinsella.mp3
From my recent appearance on Stephan Livera's bitcoin-focused podcast.
SLP15 – Intellectual Property, Bitcoin, and Internet Censorship, with Stephan Kinsella
Stephan Kinsella, Intellectual Property lawyer, and libertarian advocate joins me in this episode to discuss:
His story with bitcoin Money as Sui Generis Good The imprecise application of Lockean property theory Why you can’t own bitcoin, but it probably doesn’t make a big difference anyway The harmful effects of patents and copyright ‘Internet Censorship’ as it relates to property rights and ownership of private social media platforms
Stephan Kinsella links:
Twitter: @nskinsella Stephan’s website: StephanKinsella.com Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom Stephan Kinsella’s podcast, Kinsella on Liberty
Podcast links:
Libsyn SLP15 Apple Stitcher Spotify
I really enjoyed this conversation with Stephan Kinsella, and I hope you enjoy listening to it. If you get value out of this episode, please remember to share it on your social media as that really helps expand my reach. Thanks guys.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 247.
On a recent episode [July 29, 2018] of Free Talk Live, Ian and Mark discuss their disagreement over Mark's filing a DMCA (copyright) takedown of a critical YouTube video. I called in to discuss this issue and intellectual property with Mark for the July 31 episode. For the full episode, go here. The excerpt with my portion is included here.
I've discussed IP and other libertarian issues on FTL before:
KOL141 | FreeTalkLive: IP and SOPA (2012) KOL082 | FreeTalkLive Guest Appearance: IP (2011) FreeTalkLive/XM Extreme Talk Appearance re Intellectual Property KOL 033 | Free Talk Live Interview on Reducing IP Costs (2010)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 246.
This is my appearance on the CryptoVoices podcast, Episode 43, interviewed by host Matthew Mežinskis. As indicated in the show notes (below), we discussed a variety of issues related to bitcoin, property rights, and related matters. The hosts also informed me of a recent article they had written regarding the economic classification of crypto tokens: An Economic Definition of Cryptotokens.
Shownotes: Show support appreciated: 35iDYDYqRdN2x6KGcpdV2W1Hy3AjGje9oL
Matthew interviews Stephan Kinsella, longtime advocate of private property and personal liberty, and expert on intellectual property law.
We discuss broad-ranging issues on Bitcoin and private property. Is Bitcoin really property per se, and does anyone truly own bitcoin(s)? Also, how does the nature of intellectual property (or lack thereof) play into the open-source aspects of Bitcoin? What is Bitcoin? Is Bitcoin a digital good? Stephan shares his knowledge on the history of intellectual thought, personal liberty, and intellectual property to answer some of these questions. We discuss some current topics about the brand of Bitcoin (versus Bitcoin Cash), and if blockchain could(?) ever resolve some of the faults and friction in IP that Stephan has studied for years. Stephan is a well-read intellectual and Bitcoiners would do well to read more of his writings.
Links for more info: twitter.com/NSKinsella www.stephankinsella.com/ mises.org/profile/stephan-kinsella mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0 mises.org/library/goods-scarce-and-nonscarce cointelegraph.com/news/pro-btc-mov…ng-lack-of-funds
Further references:
KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) KOL233 | Mises UK Podcast: Bitcoin Ownership and the Global Withering of the State for more on whether bitcoin is ownable property, see this Facebook thread KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender KOL086 | RARE Radio interview with Kurt Wallace: The War on Bitcoin KOL 043 | Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast, with Michael Shanklin: Bitcoin, Legal Reform, Morality of Voting, Rothbard on Copyright Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, WSJ Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; Miami Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Not Money; Dismisses Money Laundering, Transmitting Charges How to handle bitcoin gains on your taxes SEC: US Securities Laws ‘May Apply’ to Token Sales Federal Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Real Money
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 245
From my appearance on the Nothing Exempt podcast, Ep. 53, discussing IP with a couple of libertarian hosts. Well, co-host Nick said he was 80% libertarian and disagreed with me on IP ... but for somewhat inscrutable reasons, as I started asking him about, about 4 minutes in. Recorded June 6, 2018.
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/7FBu0EXyukU
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 244.
From my recent appearance on the first episode of rising libertarian and media star Michael Malice's "Your Welcome" show on his new network, GaS Digital (consider subscribing--libertarian Dave Smith also has a great show on the network--I just did). I was in New York for the weekend, he was rebooting his show on a new network, so it was kismet. We discussed the basic case against intellectual property (I had to persuade Malice, an anarcho-capitalist who came into this without a lot of settled views on it), the Hoppe "toy helicopter" incident [e.g., 1, 2, 3], the infamous Robert Wenzel "debate," and a few other issues, like my recent bout with prostate cancer (yeah, he got me to go there). (Recorded May 26, 2018)
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/i0rvfJpPJ-4
From the YouTube episode description: It's the first episode of "YOUR WELCOME"! Join Michael Malice as he speaks with American Intellectual Property Lawyer Stephan Kinsella on the current system of IP and how the implementation of its laws effect commerce, culture and society. From the drug industry to entertainment, the precedents set by those who govern over the laws of Intellectual Property help shape the foundation of culture as well as the economy. Listen as Michael Malice delves deep into the core of the issues and stories that effect our world today. "YOUR WELCOME". Follow the show @michaelmalice, @NSKinsella Original video available by subscription at GasDigital
Excerpt:
https://youtu.be/QV-LVhEhJCI
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 243.
From my recent appearance on the Libertarian Christians podcast, discussing (what else) IP, with host Norman Horn from May 22, 2018.
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/mrcZJsnSMUw
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 242.
I was a guest last night on Punching Left, with hosts Clifton Knox and David German, discussing argumentation ethics, estoppel, covenant communities, the non-aggression principle, physical removal, Hoppe, Propertarianism, Curt Doolittle, Austin Peterson, and so on.
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/bRsaVKXzYKk
Related material:
Kinsella, Defending Argumentation Ethics The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory Revisiting Argumentation Ethics Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide KOL228 | Argumentation Ethics – Lions of Liberty KOL218 | Argumentation Ethics – Patterson in Pursuit KOL161 | Argumentation Ethics, Estoppel, and Libertarian Rights: Adam Smith Forum, Moscow (2014) Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics and Its Critics New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory, 12:2 Journal of Libertarian Studies: 313-26 (Fall 1996) Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach, 12:1 Journal of Libertarian Studies 51 (Spring 1996) Hans Hermann Hoppe, “On The Ethics of Argumentation” (PFS 2016) Frank van Dun, “Argumentation Ethics and The Philosophy of Freedom” KOL181 | Tom Woods Show: It Is Impossible to Argue Against Libertarianism Without Contradiction The A priori of Argumention, video introduction by Hoppe Lecture 3 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “The Social Theory of Hoppe” (slides here) Lecture 2 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society” (slides here)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 241.
I was a guest yesterday (3/26/18) on Dave Smith's podcast. His description: "Talking Libertarian Legal philosophy with Stephan Kinsella. Topics include how the court systems could work without government and why intellectual property isn't real."
We discussed a wide-ranging but fairly high-level array of libertarian theory issues, including how I became a libertarian, the main influencers (Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Bastiat, Mises, Rothbard), property theory and scarcity, Hoppe's argumentation ethics, praxeology, dualism of various types, and, sigh, yes, intellectual property. Dave even worked in a funny joke about "The Man on the Moon" ... well you'll just have to see for yourself. But he stole it from Steve Martin.
Good times.
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/bV4UFJQtxu4
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.
Transcript below.
For my other presentation, and for more details, see KOL236 | Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Libertopia 2012).
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/lTWjqn16fGk Libertopia 2012 IP Panel Stephan Kinsella, Charles Johnson, and Butler Shaffer Oct. 12, 2012 Transcript 00:00:00
M: Butler, Shaffer with his Gandalf stick [indiscernible_00:00:03], the great Stephan Kinsella [indiscernible_00:00:10] is he up? Jeffy Jeff, Jeffy B.
00:00:15
STEPHAN KINSELLA: No. Charles Johnson.
00:00:17
M: Charles? Check.
00:00:19
M: Charles.
00:00:21
M: Charles Johnson [indiscernible_00:00:24] so if you guys want to have a seat. Our general format is, as you imagine, rules free. So it just – I’ll make statements and take your turns as you see fit.
00:00:36
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I think we need a third chair.
00:00:38
M: Did you want to – are we just going to use the podium?
00:00:41
M: Oh, I see.
00:00:42
M: We can bring out three chairs if you’d like.
00:00:43
M: I think three chairs is – that’s what we did yesterday. I think everyone sat down, and remember the first three rows must heckle. That is the rule. You must heckle and, in fact, under your seat a bucket of fruit, fairly old, and [indiscernible_00:00:59]. You can skip them.
00:01:02
00:01:12
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Sorry.
00:01:13
M: No problem. It just comes with the territory.
00:01:16
00:01:28
M: All right, Mr. Butler, if you’d like to take it away I will have a seat [indiscernible_00:01:32]
00:01:34
BUTLER SHAFFER: Are we all set?
00:01:35
STEPHAN KINSELLA: We’re set.
00:01:36
BUTLER SHAFFER: Is this all turned on? I assume. All right. Our panel has to do with the personal significance of intellectual property [indiscernible_00:01:53] faces out there [indiscernible_00:01:57]. I’m doing the moderating I guess, and leave it up to these two fine people to do all the substantive stuff. I would like to at least start this off with one question in which maybe we can get some responses to get this one thing started [indiscernible_00:02:29]. And that has to do with whether or not, in a state-less society, would we have patents or copyrights. And be careful how you answer that question. I don’t know if it’s either a yes-or-no answer [indiscernible_00:02:47]. What do you think?
00:02:51
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Charles, do you want to start since I had a shot at this yesterday?
00:02:54
CHARLES JOHNSON: Sure. So my position is no, there’s not going to be copyright or patent protections that look anything like the bundle of legal protections that go along with those today.
00:03:06
00:03:09
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Of course I agree. I actually think there wouldn’t be trademark, trade secret, or any other type of IP as well.
00:03:16
BUTLER SHAFFER: We’re set. Why don’t we go home?
00:03:19
[laughter]
00:03:23
BUTLER SHAFFER: The reason I ask that and the reason I ask it in the form of a question for which yes or no might not be a complete answer is here we see a problem with copyright or patent arising out of contract between two parties.
00:03:43
CHARLES JOHNSON: Well, so the first thing I’d want to do here is draw a line for a moment between copyrights and patents when it comes to potential trying to kluge around through a contractual mechanism. In the case of patents, of course, you have – discoveries are held to be patentable and the monopoly enforceable against other discoverers even if there’s no prior relationship whatever. So if you have independent discoveries, the patent is still held to give a monopoly privilege to the initial discoverer. And it seems that there’s – it’s not only that people would be unlikely to come up with contracts to ...
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).
Youtube, Slides, and Transcript below.
This podcast is Part 2, covering most of the remaining 41 issues, some of which are noted below.
❧ Topics discussed:
IP by Contract It’s in the Constitution! Utilitarian arguments for IP
Commerce Dept. Study
Prize system Venture Capital/startup funding Questions as Arguments You want something for free! IP abolitionists are not successful creators But you’re a patent lawyer… Okay, I’ll take your stuff and sell it! The plague of plagiarism No innovation without IP
Tabarrok: Patent Policy on the Back of a Napkin
You can’t make money without IP Identity theft Argument by grammar/semantics/emotion
IP infringement is: knocking off, ripping off, stealing, taking, theft, piracy (“because” IP is “property”) Argument by possessive: it’s “your” idea; whose else would it be?
IP used to work well, but now it's “broken”
The perils of “reform”
Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater Intuition How would s/he get paid? Randian: Man's purpose is to "create values", so he needs to own the “products of his creation”.
Perils of argument by metaphor
Anti-IP is Anti-Intellect, anti-creativity you own the fruits of your labor IP is/is not about protecting “ideas”
Odd distinctions between “implementations” of ideas or “innovation” and “ideas”
Patents: Innovation vs. Disclosure Only leftists would oppose IP Patent and Copyright could exist under anarchy/at common law Pharmaceuticals! We need IP to stop piracy! Conflict over ideas/Good ideas is scarce! EM spectrum and IP Computer Hacking and IP
❧ Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP—Part 2 by Stephan Kinsella (Transcript for the unfinished a speech delivered at Libertopia 2012 (San Diego, Oct. 12, 2012), Oct. 18, 2012) [transcript for Part 1] 00:00:02
STEPHAN KINSELLA: So this is Stephan Kinsella. It’s Thursday, October 18. I intend this to be part two, or the conclusion of my Libertopia lecture. In Libertopia, I gave a talk, about a 45-minute talk on – well, it would have been 45 minutes. It was about 40 minutes because there was a question at the end by Neil Schulman the last five minutes. Anyway, the talk was on Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for Intellectual Property, or IP, and I had about 65 or 6 slides prepared of notes for myself of topics to discuss. I got to about slide 25, so there’s several topics left to discuss. I thought what I would do is just go through those slides now, so I’ve already put the slides up on my website, c4sif.org, and you can view them there, download them, look them in Google Docs, etc. The – and there are several hyperlinks embedded in there.
00:01:08
So the next topic I wanted to talk about is the common argument you hear quite often, which is that we could form intellectual property by contract or that intellectual property like patent and copyright are justified as a type of breach of contract. And I am on slide 26 of my set of slides right now, by the way. The title is “IP by Contract.” So the basic argument, which I’ve addressed already, by the way, in my long IP article from 2001 in the reference given there. The basic argument is that imagine that imagine that you sell a book to someone or you sell a ticket to a movie to a customer.
00:01:55
And you put on there some fine print or you make someone even sign a contract saying I promise not to do certain thing...
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.
This episode covers issues in the first 25 slides, including:
Overview of case against IP: purpose of property
patent and copyright: as negative servitudes
Absurd Arguments for IP “Serious” Arguments for IP Libertarian Property “Creationism”
Rand on rearrangement
Good ideas are scarce! IP is just like “property”! All property rights are limited/no property rights are “absolute” Absolute property rights We should “balance” innovation/IP vs. free speech Roots of copyright: censorship Balance: between copyright and freedom of speech Hollywood blockbuster movies vs. Youtube/Internet freedom We should “balance” innovation/IP vs. free speech IP is not a monopoly!
Origin of modern patents
Liberty is good, but not our “only value”
(Previously posted as here: Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Libertopia 2012) (Oct. 13, 2012). See also See also: There are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property.)
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.
Update: I thought of one more argument that I forgot to cover in the slides and talk. It is the argument made by Silas Barta that (a) some libertarians support rights in airwaves (electromagnetic spectra); but (b) if you support airwave rights you have no basis to object to rights in other nonscarce resources like inventions or patterns of information (see Why Airwaves (Electromagnetic Spectra) Are (Arguably) Property). [Update: See also Silas Barta: The shortest, safest libertarian case [sic] for IP]
There are several problems with this argument. First, not all libertarians support rights in EM spectra. So they are not committed to favor IP rights, even by Barta's argument.
Second, even if EM spectra ought to be homesteadable, it does not mean that patterns of information ought to be. This is because EM spectra are actually scarce resources, while patterns of information are not. IP proponents typically grudgingly admit, when pressed, that EM spectra are scarce but patterns of information—knowledge—is not, but they then shift to the argument that the monopoly over information leads to a "right to exploit" the monopoly, which leads to acquisition of profit (money), which is a scarce resource. The problem with the latter maneuver is that the profit comes from money voluntarily handed over to a seller by a customer. But the customer owns his money until he chooses to spend it. No other person has any property right claim in other people's money or, thus, in any possible future income stream or profits.
Third, even if support of airwave property rights were to imply some type of possible rights in information or the right-to-exploit information, it does not imply that legislated IP rights systems like patent and copyright are justified (see, e.g., Legislation and Law in a Free Society). The advocate of an IP system that is somehow compatible with EM spectra rights has the burden of making a positive obligation for this system, and specifying its details. He can't just say that IP is justified just because some of its opponents favor EM rights or are confused on the EM issue.
Finally, and to complement the previous point: even if you can argue that EM rights are valid, and do somehow impinge on normal property rights in scarce resources (which I disagree with), this does not mean that "anything goes",
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.
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 wer...
Debating Wright
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 234.
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.
After the debate
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.
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." That was too deferential. On the other hand, he did pay for the venue and related costs, so I was being polite.
Youtube (with captions):
https://youtu.be/5ckcdnD9lFw
Original Youtube (which contains a large number of comments; see below):
❧ TRANSCRIPT Intellectual Property Debate: Stephan Kinsella vs. Craig Wright Stephan Kinsella, Craig Wright, and Vin Armani Vin Armani Show, London and Las Vegas, Jan. 27, 2018 00:00:00
VIN ARMANI: Welcome everyone to today’s debate. We are debating intellectual property. The two opponents are Stephan Kinsella and Craig Wright. Stephan Kinsella is an attorney in Houston, director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom and editor of Libertarian Papers. He is one of the foremost libertarian experts on intellectual property.
00:00:23
And Dr. Craig Wright is an inventor, computer scientist, and businessman who is one of the earliest minds behind Bitcoin. He’s the chief scientist at nChain research and development company involved in Bitcoin and blockchain technologies. So today what we are going to be debating is the following resolution resolved. Intellectual property law is a legitimate and useful institution that belongs in the emerging global sphere of blockchain technology and cryptocurrency.
00:00:54
Craig Wright will be arguing for the resolution, and Stephan Kinsella will be arguing against. This debate is going to consist of a series of five-minute statements and rebuttals, a series of rounds. The first round is going to be an opening statement from each of the debaters. We are going to start with – did we say we’re starting with Craig Wright? So we will start with Craig Wright who is arguing for the resolution. Dr. Wright, if you will.
00:01:26
CRAIG WRIGHT: Thank you. So basically what we’re looking at is the idea that intellectual property has no value from other people. Now, I would argue it does, not because of the common constraints and whatever else people put about scarcity and what they think about copying but for a number of reasons first as the scarcity of good ideas. There are many ideas out there in the world,
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 economi...
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.
Transcript below.
Some of Ernie's shownotes are pasted below.
11-03-17 -- Roy Robin - Stephan Kinsella - Alan Korwin -- (VIDEO MP3 LOADED) Roy Robin (Founder ICO Token Fund) talks about their decentralized investment platform - Stephan Kinsella (Intellectual Property Attorney) and Alan Korwin (Author; GunLaws.Com) discuss intellectual property and copyright issuesProgram Date: Friday, November 3, 2017
Hour 1: Media Type: Audio • Time: 48:48 Mins and Secs
Hour 2: Media Type: Audio • Time: 136:0 Mins and Secs
Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock - Radio Host: Ernest Hancock Email: ernesthancock@cox.net Website: www.ernesthancock.com
Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock strives to create an understanding of the Philosophy of Liberty. Understanding is far more important than agreement -- that will come in its own time.
DONATE Bitcoins Here 1PCnPViv1PENR5Qme63DKYbj19hmHQoag1
Click to Subscribe To RSS Feed: (Use your browser)
Click to Subscribe to this program on iTunes Store: (Podcast)
Subscribe to Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock Archives
DYI App for Android
LRN.FM for Android and iOS! Listen Live @ LRN.fm
HOUR ONE
Media Type: Audio • Time: 48:48 Mins and Secs
Guests: Roy Robin Topics: ICO Token FundHour 1 - Roy Robin (Founder ICO Token Fund) talks about their decentralized investment platform
Hour 2 - Stephan Kinsella (Intellectual Property Attorney) and Alan Korwin (Author; GunLaws.Com) discuss intellectual property and copyright issues
Hour 3 - Stephan Kinsella on intellectual property rights
CALL IN TO SHOW: 602-264-2800
-30-
Feature Article • Global Edition Freedom's Phoenix Declare Your Independence APP now on Google Play Donna Hancock Listen to any recent show of "Declare Your Independence" at the click of a button!
November 3rd, 2017
Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock
on LRN.FM / Monday - Friday
9 a.m. - Noon (EST)
Studio Line: 602-264-2800
Hour 1
2017-11-03 Hour 1 Roy Robin from Ernest Hancock on Vimeo.
Roy Robin
With Over 10 Years of Experience Building Teams, Building Brands and Launching Companies, Roy brings a unique background of proven leadership to the ICOT Project.
Webpage: http://icotokenfund.com/go/
Investment Breakdown
Below is the ICOT Foundations Strategy
One Year Hold
40% of the Holdings will be invested 1/3'rd into BTC, 1/3'rd into LTC and 1/3'rd into ETH for a One Year Hold
ICO Investing
25% of the Funds will be used for ICO investing.
Market Opportunities
The ICOT Foundation will invest 12.5% of the fund into to profit from market opportunities such as Corrections, Hard Forks, etc.
Acqusitions
The ICOT Foundation will keep 22.5% of the fund available for ICO Acquisitions & Mergers.
CHECK OUT THE ICOT TOKEN SALE
Round One
$ 50,000
5 Million Coin Hard Cap Any Unsold Tokens BURNED
SOLD OUT
Round Two
$ 1.8 Mil
2.5 Mil Tokens at 0.25 2.5 Mil Tokens at 0.50 Any Unsold Tokens BURNED
This Round is Live
Round Three
5 Mil
2.5 Mil Tokens at 0.75 1.25 Mil Tokens at $1 1.25 Mil Tokens at $1.50
Upcoming Round
Join The Token Sale!
Below Are The Steps To Buy ICOT:
Send Eth From ERC20 Wallet :
Token Address: 0xEF333188332869D25C67CA7505a2eE9CD6B591dB Gas: 200,000
Add Custom Token Information :
Token Address: 0x63e7eEd4c0B1EaA2c8b21195e5255aB227fe3D2a Token: ICOT Decimals: 18
=======================================
TOPICS DISCUSSED...
http://www.
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://www.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.
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. Video embedded below. Slides used embedded below (or can be downloaded).
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:
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, “A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability,” J. Libertarian Stud. (2003) 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)
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
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:
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. I appeared on his previous podcast, Outside the Music Box, a while back. 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.
01/31/2017 | 0
Listen to this episode
Play / pause
1x
Intellectual Property is the Bastard Child of the Gatekeepers (Ep. 14)
0:00 0:00
Intellectual Property is the Bastard Child of the Gatekeepers (Ep. 14)
Download "Doing Business Without Intellectual Property!"
Download
stephankinsella.com
You're probably going to disagree with what is said in this episode. In fact, it could very well make you angry. But, as Bob Dylan said, "The times, they are a changin'."
It's an issue that I've wrestled with over the years and have finally come to the conclusion that Intellectual Property (IP) is detrimental to progress and innovation. While on the surface it appears to protect the rights of content creators to profit from their content, the reality is that the only people who really profit are the "gate keepers" and those who hang out near "the gates".
I've tried to take a "back door" approach with this issue before, thinking that people would somehow be persuaded to see my point of view without actually telling them my point of view. Not surprisingly, the results of that approach weren't encouraging.
I've decided to just come right out and say it. Intellectual Property is Horrible The fact of the matter is that just about every way of thinking that was considered set in stone a short time ago is suddenly up for debate once again.
What are the origins of IP? How did it become de facto conventional knowledge in modern society? Is it really the only legalized monopoly in existence?
Enter my guest for this episode, Stephan Kinsella. He's been a patent attorney in Houston, TX for nearly 30 years. He's the author of Against Intellectual Property as well as a pamphlet titled, Doing Business Without Intellectual Property.
In this discussion, we discuss why intellectual property (IP) is a hindrance to progress and innovation for musicians, and how MusicPreneur's can navigate the oftentimes confusing waters of IP.
IP is not compatible with traditional view of property.
World of scarcity - one person can use at a time
Austrian Economics
Mises: Human Action Act: Human has conception of where he is, what future is coming, anticipates what future is coming. Makes necessary changes... Informed by your knowledge of what's possible; tools at your disposal.
Involves employment of scarce resources Guided by knowledge
Impossible to have monopoly in an idea.
IP Law enforces law with use of force. Another form of redistribution of wealth.
2 Rules in Acquiring Property
First person to start using it - Homesteading; original appropriation Purchase materials in a legitimate exchange
How IP came about
Printing press was a threat to established order Statute of Monopolies Statute of Anne created copyright
Practical Application - How can musicians maximize exposure while protecting artistic integrity?
Don't have to have a copyright. Don't have to register/enforce Creative Commons Don't sign rights away to a studio SK self-publishing next book
Liberty and freedom available now that hasn't existed
Profit is an unnatural thing - breeds competitors. Entrepreneurs need to be aware of how business models can be copied. Some are not viable.
What does the next 10 years hold?
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 216. www.stephankinsella.com/kinsella-on-liberty-podcast/
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:
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.
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.
[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.
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)
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!
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) [archive version] 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)
❧ Transcript [not yet edited] Tom Woods Show: Five Mistakes Libertarians Make Stephan Kinsella and Tom Woods, "Tom Woods Show: Five Mistakes Libertarians Make," StephanKinsella.com (Feb. 12, 2016) 00:00:00
TOM WOODS: The Tom Woods Show, episode 592.
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. Welcome to another episode of the show. Talking to Stephan Kinsella today because he’s just – he’s got one of those sharp, sharp minds. He thinks clearly. He writes clearly. He writes and speaks very precisely. He helps to clarify my own thinking, and I thought we’d talk about some areas of libertarian thought or some questions where we’re liable to get off track or get confused or maybe not really know what the right libertarian answer is. So it’s always fun to talk to Stephan who is a libertarian legal theorist. He is the author of Against Intellectual Property and many articles that are of importance in libertarian theory. We’ll be linking, of course, to his material and his contact information at tomwoods.com/592.
00:01:09
Now, let me tell you one quick thing. I don’t know why this happens, but one episode out of 100 the recording software I use just fails completely, and you have no warning that it’s going to fail. It’s recording perfectly fine. You can catch the clock going, and then boom, no recording when you’re all done. It’s Pamela, by the way, Pamela for Skype. Now, you really need software to be 100% reliable. You really do, so if you have an alternative to Pamela, I would grab it. Right now, I don’t have time to figure out an alternative, so thank goodness; thank goodness Stephan was recording the episode on his end. So whatever gremlin was trying to screw with me, we got the last laugh here because Stephan was doing the recording.
00:01:52
So in this episode, his audio will be better than mine because he’s recording himself basically locally and then me through Skype, so his audio will be better than mine. That’s the reason.
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. 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 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.
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.
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,
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:
This is my appearance on Albert Lu's "The Economy" podcast. This is part 1 of 3. We discussed property rights, bitcoin ownership, intellectual property, and related matters.
Parts 2 and 3 to follow in due course.
Relevant links:
KOL233 | Mises UK Podcast: Bitcoin Ownership and the Global Withering of the State for more on whether bitcoin is ownable property, see this Facebook thread KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender KOL086 | RARE Radio interview with Kurt Wallace: The War on Bitcoin KOL 043 | Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast, with Michael Shanklin: Bitcoin, Legal Reform, Morality of Voting, Rothbard on Copyright Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, WSJ Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; Miami Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Not Money; Dismisses Money Laundering, Transmitting Charges How to handle bitcoin gains on your taxes SEC: US Securities Laws ‘May Apply’ to Token Sales Federal Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Real Money KOL249 | WCN's Max Hillebrand: Intellectual Property and Who Owns Bitcoin What do you legally “own” with Bitcoin? Posted on November 23, 2018 by prestonbyrne Portugal Tax Authorities Clarify That Buying Or Selling Cryptocurrency Is Tax-Free
See also: KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender
Episode video:
Full video below:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 190.
This is my talk “On Life without Patents and Copyright: Or, Who Would Pick The Cotton?”, delivered at the Property and Freedom Society, 10th Annual Meeting, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 13, 2015).
Update: See KOL190 | Part 2: On Life without Patents and Copyright: Or, But Who Would Pick the Cotton? — Panel Discussion, Hoppe, Dürr, Kinsella, van Dun, Daniels (PFS 2015).
Transcript below.
Video below. This version is taken from my iPhone recording. My notes used for the speech are pasted below. Also below is a video of the Q&A panel session following the talk.
Related: Do Business Without Intellectual Property (Liberty.me, 2014) (PDF).
NOTES On Life without Patents and Copyright: Or, But Who Would Pick the Cotton? Stephan Kinsella Kinsella Law Group, Libertarian Papers, C4SIF.org Property and Freedom Society, 10th Annual Meeting Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 13, 2015)
A pleasure to be at PFS or, as I’m starting to think of it, the Land of Successive Hangovers Hoppe: does not do interviews because he does not like to repeat himself
So I thank him for asking me to speak on intellectual property for the first time ever
My topic: What would life without IP be like?
Or: But how will people make money in an IP-free world? Subtitle: But who would pick the cotton?
Questions about IP are often confused. There are at least three separate, though possibly related, issues:
Should we have patent and copyright law? (A political-normative question.) Given that we do, how should people respond in today’s world? I.e., Life with patent and copyright. (practical and ethical question). What would an IP-free world look like? Life without (A prediction.)
Summarize case against IP
Propertarian; utilitarian
As for the second and especially third issues, the questions: Questions are not arguments and are not always sincere
Sometimes loaded or rhetorical But who will pick the cotton if we eliminate chattel slavery?
Illegitimate (and hidden/disguised) argument
Why do you support intellectual communism? (loaded) How many brands of cars, or toothpaste, will we have in a post-communist world? (prediction and disguised argument) But you’re an IP lawyer
Didn’t realize I was so powerful—my personal choice of career has somehow changed the structure of moral reality. I guess I’m like the libertarian Beyonder or Molecule Man
We cannot deny that changing state law will have no effect.
If state legislation had no effect, we would not mind them Eliminating a bad law will have effects, just as imposing a bad law will have effects So it can be reasonable to ask what effects removing a bad law will be, so long as one is not implying “and unless your answer satisfies me, we will keep the bad law in place”
With that said, let’s consider the second two questions 2: how should people respond? Life with patent and copyright.
Mainly a practical and ethical question Infringing IP is exclusively a prudential, not a moral, issue
If you can get away with copyright piracy or patent infringement, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with it
Torrents, etc.
In many fields it is difficult to avoid employing IP, given its existence
Publishers will insist on the assignment or license of copyright Patents are often necessary for defensive purposes We must be careful to avoid conspicuous copyright piracy to avoid severe penalties and imprisonment Innovators and companies face the risk of being sued for patent infringement by patent trolls and large competitors
That said, it is arguably immoral (unlibertarian) to use patent or copyright law aggressively (offensively), for example to sue an innocent person for patent or copyright infringement,
or to engage in patent and copyright “trolling”
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 189.
This is an interview I did a few weeks ago with English libertarian Richard Storey. We discuss the nature of libertarianism, its roots in Western Rationalism and how to defend and promote it, property rights and scarcity, the significance of Hoppe's argumentation ethics, praxeology, Misesian dualism, logical positivism, legal positivism, and related matters.
Related material:
What Libertarianism Is Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide Logical and Legal Positivism
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 188.
I was a guest last night (Sunday night, Aug. 23, 2015) on the Free Talk Live radio show, with hosts Mark Edge and Ian Freeman, discussing the common law, legislation, restitution, and related issues.
For background/related:
Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter v. the Field Codes Legislation and Law in a Free Society Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach The Libertarian Approach to Negligence, Tort, and Strict Liability: Wergeld and Partial Wergeld The (State’s) Corruption of (Private) Law Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 187.
I appeared on Jeff Berwick's show in 2012: Kinsella on Anarchast Discussing IP, Anarcho-libertarianism, and Legislation vs. Private Law (Dec. 29, 2012): I was a guest on Jeff Berwick's Anarchast (ep. 51, 36 min), released today. We discussed anarchy and how such a society might be reached; the basis and origin of law and property rights and its relationship to libertarian principles, and implications for legislation versus law and the legitimacy of intellectual property; also, utilitarianism, legal positivism, scientism, and logical positivism. Description from the Anarchist site below. For more background on IP, see the C4SIF Resources page; on legislation vs. private law, see The (State’s) Corruption of (Private) Law. Update: See also Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society.
Anarchast Ep. 51 with Stephan Kinsella Jeff Berwick in Acapulco, Mexico, talks with Stephan Kinsella in Houston, Texas
Topics include:
- Stephan explains how he became an anarchist and some of the books that pointed him in the right direction including
- The Fountainhead (http://amzn.to/VnZwSL)
- Stephan is a practicing attorney that applies his legal knowledge with his libertarian philosophy
- He believes a free law society will only come about if a majority of people agree in libertarian principles
- Law is defined as a concrete body of rules that permits a group of people that want to be able to cooperate to be able to do so
- Jeff asks if it is necessary for everyone to agree with libertarian philosophy in order to have a free society
- Stephan thinks that a majority of people already have libertarian principles but have not been educated correctly in constancy
- He is more optimistic that most because he sees more people not accepting central planning than in the past
- Jeff thinks that there could be a backlash against free market ideas during a financial collapse where the people believe capitalism is to blame
- Stephan hopes that people will slowly find the state to be irrelevant and this will bring about a free society
- Jeff thinks that there will be a financial collapse that will make this transition unpredictable
- Stephan is an expert in libertarian Intellectual Property theory
- He explains the principles of property law
- What most people think is law today is not what law would be based on in a libertarian society
- Stephan explains the problem with legal and economic positivism
- The proper libertarian view is to be opposed to making law through legislation
- The problem with intellectual property is that you are able to use the force of the government against someone who has not aggressed against you
- Stephan explains the problems with the utilitarian Intellectual property justification
- The intellectual property system forces everyone to participate even if they don’t agree with it
Stephan is doing astounding work in libertarian legal theory you can find more in formation on his sites
https://www.stephankinsella.com/
http://c4sif.org/
For more information on The Dollar Vigilante, go to http://dollarvigilante.com. For more information on Jeff Berwick’s anarchist enclave, Galt’s Gulch Chile, go to http://galtsgulchchile.com. And, for more on the anarchist enclave in Acapulco go to http://dollarvigilante.com/acacondos. Come on down and be a guest on Anarchast and live relatively free amongst other anarchists.
Source: http://financialsurvivalnetwork.com/2012/12/anarchast-ep-51-with-stephan-kinsella/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=anarchast-ep-51-with-stephan-kinsella
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 186.
The Great IP Debate: Stephan Kinsella vs. Alexander Baker Liberty.me (July 8, 2014). From the Liberty.me description: Intellectual property is one of the most controversial topics among libertarians. Can ideas be legitimate forms of property? Do the benefits of intellectual property laws, such as providing incentives for inventors, overcome the negatives, such as benefiting large corporations relative to newcomers in industry? Stephan Kinsella argues ideas are not and cannot be property, and that the negatives of IP easily outweigh the positives: IP amounts to a grant of government monopoly. Alexander Baker counters with a theory entitled “Intellectual Space” which argues that intangible goods (songs, movies, software, games) display all the same characteristics (homesteadable, useful, costly, scarce, rivalrous) as physical goods (bicycles, factories, diamonds), thus requiring property rights to eliminate conflict over their use.
Related:
KOL 040 | INTERVIEW: Alexander Baker: Discussion with a Pro-Intellectual Property Libertarian KOL 038 | Debate with Robert Wenzel on Intellectual Property KOL079 | “Federalist Society IP Debate (Ohio State)” (2011) KOL076 | IP Debate with Chris LeRoux An IP challenge for Alexander Baker (Louigi Verona) Why Intellectual Property is Not Real Property (Michael Mogren, Liberty on the Rocks—Denver) Baker's most recent ruminations on IP."Ace" Baker will never figure out IP. He keeps trying over and over again to explain what he thinks about it, and why it may be justified. Sad. My comment: "When do you think you'll finally figure this stuff out? Let me tell you--never. You are doing what I tried to do from about 1990 to 1994--I tried to find a good argument for IP. I kept stumbling. Finally, after having read and thought enough, I realized why I was unable to do this. Because, you know, IP is totally and utterly unjustified. I was young enough to admit my previous error and to change course. I fear you are too old now and determined to argue for IP no matter what. This is tendentious, and sad."
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 185.
From a Liberty.me seminar from July 14, 2014. Clarifying Libertarian Theory with Stephan Kinsella
Everyone seem to have an opinion about what the “correct” libertarianism is. What are its limits? What are the areas in which libertarians get bogged down in semantic arguments and minutiae, and what are the arguments that really matter? Stephan Kinsella believes that he has the answers, and will share them Monday, July 14th at 9pm EDT! Video here, also embedded below:
Related:
KOL 045 | “Libertarian Controversies Lecture 1″ (Mises Academy, 2011); KOL 044 | “Correcting some Common Libertarian Misconceptions” (PFS 2011)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 184.
Last month I attended PorcFest 2015 and delivered this talk on intellectual property. Video version below (followed by a lower quality version shot by James Cox).
I also participated in a debate on anarchy and participated in a couple of radio shows (Ernie Hancock’s Freedom Phoenix and Free Talk Live). James Cox shot some other videos as well, which are up on his channel; a few of these are also embedded below.
Porcfest 2015: The Root of All Evil (official PorcFest version)
Lecture: Intellectual Property is the Root of All Evil: Porcfest 2015 (James Cox version)
Stephan Kinsella - Intellectual Property: The Root of All Evil
Sign up or log in to save this event to your list and see who's attending!
TweetShare
In this talk, Kinsella explains that the most evil state policies and institutions include war, taxation, state provided education, central banking, the drug war — and intellectual property, or IP, namely patent and copyright law. In the modern age, IP's importance, and the damage it causes, have increased. Patent originated in protectionism and mercantilism, while copyright originated in censorship. In this modern age of high tech, globalization and international trade, the economic cost of patent law and its detrimental effect on innovation has gotten many times worse. Copyright limits the freedom to learn and communicate and threatens to undermine freedom on the Internet, one of the most important tools to fight against the state.
Kinsella, a practicing patent attorney, argues that IP is in a sense the most insidious of the major state institutions. War, taxation, the drug war, and other state laws and institutions are obviously illiberal and rights violations. However, patent and copyright law fly under the banner of intellectual "property" rights, confusing even many anti-state libertarians, who normally support property rights. Kinsella argues that IP rights are based on a fallacious understanding of rights—namely, confusions in Locke's 'labor theory of property'—and that this error pervades and corrupts much modern thinking about the role of law and property rights and the state. The damage caused and the threat posed by IP is greater than most people realize; it is growing; and the intellectual error behind it must be exposed.
Speakers
Stephan Kinsella Executive Editor, Libertarian Papers Stephan Kinsella is a practicing patent attorney and a libertarian writer and speaker. He Founder and Executive Editor of Libertarian Papers, Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF). A former adjunct professor at South Texas College of Law, he has published numerous articles and books on IP law, international law, and the application of libertarian principles to legal topics, including Against Intellectual Property... Read More →
Friday June 26, 2015 5:00pm - 5:45pm PAVILION Philosophy
Attendees (46) Attendance numbers do not account for private attendees. Get there early!
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 183.
I recently attended PorcFest 2015 and participated in a debate on anarchy and other matters, plus a speech on IP as the Root of All Evil. The YouTube, filmed by James Cox, is below. The audio here was captured by my iphone.
Update: From Ayn Rand in the Campground: The Atlas Society at PorcFest "During a highlight of the conference -- people had been anticipating it for weeks -- William Thomas debated Rand’s principle of minimal government with anarchist Stephen Kinsella to a packed and lively audience. The tent was full, with standing room only, and people were still spilling out of the tent. Everyone listened with rapt attention, cheered their favorite points, and hung around for hours afterward to talk and debate ideas. (See the video, here: https://goo.gl/snjmXE)
Lecture: Intellectual Property is the Root of All Evil: Porcfest 2015
Also:
Appeared as a guest on Ernie Hancock's Freedom's Phoenix episode for 6/26/15 (in Hour 2). We discussed IP-related aspects of bitcoin, MaidSAFE, etc.). Appeared as a guest of Mark Edge on Free Talk Live, June 26, 2015 (starts at 40:28) (video is here)
Other (mostly fun, social):
Stephan Kinsella Meets Ernie Hancock at Porcfest 2015
Stephan Kinsella Meets Adam Kokesh at Porcfest 2015
Stephan Kinsella Meets Derrick J Host Of Flaming Freedom at Porcfest 2015
Larken Rose, Stephan Kinsella and Daniel Rothschild Anarchy at The Rock (PorcFest 2015)
This is an impromptu video shot by James Cox of some discussions with Larken Rose who was sitting under his "rock" for several days.
Stephan Kinsella Chalks Porcfest 2015 K-Man Style
Porcfest 2015 Talk Stephan Kinsella, Ganine Van Alst, Daniel Rothschild, Evan Isaac, Eliza Sprague
Friday, June 26 • 10:30am - 11:20am
Anarchism, for and against: a debate
Sign up or log in to save this event to your list and see who's attending!
TweetShare
Does a commitment to liberty imply a commitment to anarchy, or the total elimination of government? Is a stable, anarchic system of liberty possible or desirable? David Kelley will moderate a debate on these issues between Stephan Kinsella Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom and William Thomas of The Atlas Society.
Moderators
David Kelley Chief Intellectual Officer, The Atlas Society David Kelley is the founder and Chief Intellectual Officer of The Atlas Society. After earning a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University in 1975, he joined the philosophy department of Vassar College, where he remained until 1984. He has also taught at Brandeis University as a Visiting Lecturer. Among his books are Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence; The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand; The Evidence of the Senses, a... Read More →
Speakers
Stephan Kinsella Executive Editor, Libertarian Papers Stephan Kinsella is a practicing patent attorney and a libertarian writer and speaker. He Founder and Executive Editor of Libertarian Papers, Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF). A former adjunct professor at South Texas College of Law, he has published numerous articles and books on IP law, international law, and the application of libertarian principles to legal topics, including Against Intellectual Property... Read More →
William Thomas Director of Programs, The Atlas Society - The Center for Objectivism William R Thomas is Director of Programs at The Atlas Society. He has a Master's Degree in Economics from the University of Michigan, and has served as Lecturer in Economics there and at the University at Albany. He has been a lecturer at Gadjah Mada University in Indonesia and conducted research under the auspices of the People's University of China. He is a graduate of Oberlin College, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Thomas is the... Read More →
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 182.
In January 2014, Stefan Molyneux (of FreeDomain Radio) and I had a discussion with Harrison Fischberg about the foundation of libertarian ethics. I just realized that I never put this on my podcast feed so—here it is.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 181.
I discussed argumentation ethics with Tom Woods on his show today: Ep. 370 It Is Impossible to Argue Against Libertarianism Without Contradiction
By Tom Woods / March 31, 2015 / Podcast
Stephan Kinsella discusses the argumentation ethics of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who argues that only libertarian norms can be argumentatively. READ MORE
Tom cleverly chose as the title for the episode a provocative one reminiscent of the bold title of Hoppe's Liberty article, "The Ultimate Justification of the Private Property Ethic" (September 1988).
I've discussed it several times in the past in audio and text. See, e.g.:
“Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide” (2011) (Audio) "New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory" KOL155 | “The Social Theory of Hoppe: Lecture 3: Libertarian Rights and Argumentation Ethics” “Argumentation Ethics, Estoppel, and Libertarian Rights: Adam Smith Forum, Moscow” “Argumentation Ethics, Estoppel, and Libertarian Rights: Transcript” “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society: Lecture 1: Libertarian Basics: Rights and Law” “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society: Lecture 2: Libertarian Basics: Rights and Law-Continued” “Argumentation Ethics and the Philosophy of Freedom,” by Frank van Dun "Argumentation Ethics" (Wikipedia) The A priori of Argumention, video introduction by Hoppe
Update: response by Bob Murphy here: Stephan Kinsella Discusses Argumentation Ethics With Tom Woods. For more: see Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan, Anti-state.com (Sept. 19, 2002) (wayback version) (reply to Bob Murphy and Gene Callahan, Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethic: A Critique, Anti-state.com (Sept. 19, 2002; wayback version; more recent version at JLS; Block’s rejoinder); debate discussed in this forum).
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 180.
Jeff Tucker and I discussed IP and my original Against Intellectual Property article. The video can be seen here, and it's embedded below:
Spreecast is the social video platform that connects people. Check out Liberty Classics: Against IP on Spreecast.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 179.
Jeff Tucker and I discuss the recent copyright lawsuit over the "Blurred Lines" song by Robin Thicke and Pharrel.
Background and related:
From this post: "In the case of copyright, for example, J.D. Salinger, author of Catcher in the Rye, convinced U.S. courts to ban the publication of a novel called 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye.” And in Canada, when a grocery store in Canada mistakenly sold 14 copies of a new Harry Potter book a few days before its official release, a judge “ordered customers not to talk about the book, copy it, sell it or even read it before it is officially released at 12:01 a.m. July 16″ (on both cases, see Atlas Hefts: The Sequel!)."
See also: The Patent, Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Horror Files
‘Blurred Lines’ Jury Orders Pharrell, Robin Thicke to Pay $7.3 Million to Marvin Gaye Family 'Blurred Lines' verdict a blow to creative expression Did Robin Thicke steal ‘Blurred Lines’ from Marvin Gaye? GREAT, NOW “BLURRED LINES” HAS RUINED THE ENTIRE MUSIC INDUSTRY A Better Silence - John Cage and copyright Silent music dispute resolved Bob Dylan Makes the Case Against Today's Copyright Climate Six songs, same tune? Mashup shows country's similarities Tom Petty on Sam Smith Settlement: 'No Hard Feelings. These Things Happen'
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 178.
I appeared on Emancipated Humans, with host Luis Fernando Mises (Feb. 24, 2015 episode).
Related Writing “Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation” “In Defense of the Corporation” “Legitimizing the Corporation” “Causation and Aggression” (with Patrick Tinsley)
See also:
KOL170: Tom Woods Show: Are Corporations Unlibertarian? KOL115 | Mises Canada Austrian AV Club—Kinsella and the Corporation on Trial (2012) KOL100 | The Role of the Corporation and Limited Liability In a Free Society (PFS 2013) KOL 026 | FreeDomain Radio with Stefan Molyneux discussing Corporations and Limited Liability Left-Libertarianism on Corporations and Limited Liability Rothbard on Corporations and Limited Liability for Tort Comment on Knapp’s Big Government, Big Business — Conjoined Twins
PILON ON CORPORATIONS: A DISCUSSION WITH KEVIN CARSON
THIS REMINDS ME OF SOME LEFT-LIBERTARIAN CRITICISMS OF “BIG BUSINESS” Defending Corporations: Block and Huebert Run! Run! It’s a Business in a Box! Legitimizing the Corporation and Other Posts
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 177.
This is the final of six lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course "Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics" (originally presented Tuesdays, Mar. 22-April 26, 2011). The first lecture may be found in KOL172.
Youtube and slides for the this lecture are provided below. The course and other matters are discussed in further detail at KOL172. The “suggested readings” for the entire course are provided in the notes for KOL172.
Lecture 6: THE FUTURE; INTEGRATING IP THEORY WITH AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS AND LIBERTARIAN THEORY; PROPOSED REFORMS; IMAGINING A POST-IP WORLD; THE FUTURE OF OPEN VS. CLOSED
SUGGESTED READING MATERIAL
See the notes for KOL172. ❧ Transcript Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics—Lecture 6: The Future; Integrating IP Theory With Austrian Economics and Libertarian Theory; Proposed Reforms; Imagining A Post-IP World; The Future of Open Vs. Closed Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, April 12, 2011 00:00:01
STEPHAN KINSELLA: … last lecture for tonight. I thought what I would do – I have several things planned for tonight to discuss. Some of them are more optional than others, so I thought I would find out whether anyone has any questions. And if there’s any questions from the lectures to date we could discuss those, say, in the first 10-15 minutes, and then I can adjust the rest of the lecture as necessary. So if anyone has any questions you’d like to discuss now, I’d be happy to take them. I’ll go ahead and start until I see any, and I’ll pause here in the first few minutes if anyone has any questions. And if at any time the video has a problem or the sound has a problem, just let me know.
00:00:47
Okay, so tonight I’m going to do some review and cover a few things in a little bit more detail, and then we’ll go on to the sort of meat of the lecture in the last 30-45 minutes. So a couple of pieces of news and some – just some news of the week. Okay, so Jock does have a question. I read in B&L – Boldrin and Levine – that’s the Against Intellectual Monopoly book – that financial instruments became patentable in the early ‘90s. Is there any evidence that they contributed to the financial meltdown?
00:01:24
Oh, I think that’s a little bit beyond my expertise, Jock. You mean the patentability of them or just the financial instruments? I mean my view as an Austrian is that the financial meltdown was just the inevitable result of the Fed inflation-caused boom and that just something is going to pop it. And I don’t think the financial instruments got more popular because of patents. It was a pretty rarely used thing from what I understand.
00:01:54
Okay, so John, I agree with you. John McGinnis, the Fed called it the meltdown. And I don’t think – I haven’t seen much abuse from these financial patents. I think people know they’re a little bit odd, and they would be hard to enforce, and they might not hold up. Okay, if you have any others just type them in here. Otherwise, let’s just go ahead and proceed. And again, I would suggest you guys, if you want to keep up with this stuff on a daily basis or weekly basis, check out my C4SIF.org website.
00:02:31
And just in the last seven days alone I think I had 15 or so posts, some of which I’ve got here. Some of these are actually older. Let me just go through some of these, and if you’re curious about any of these you can click on these links or go to C4SIF and look at them in more detail. So these are some older ones actually. All the ones on this page are from about six months ago, five months ago maybe.
00:02:53
So there was one case where a Brazilian newspaper sued a parody blog for making fun of it. So I mean that’s a little bit ironic that they’re being made fun of and then they get – then they actually sue them even though parody is typically protected by copyright.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 176.
This is the fifth of six lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course "Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics" (originally presented Tuesdays, Mar. 22-April 26, 2011). The first lecture may be found in KOL172.
Youtube and slides for this lecture are provided below. The course and other matters are discussed in further detail at KOL172. The “suggested readings” for the entire course are provided in the notes for KOL172.
Lecture 5: PROPERTY, SCARCITY, AND IDEAS; EXAMINING RIGHTS-BASED ARGUMENTS FOR IP
SUGGESTED READING MATERIAL
See the notes for KOL172. ❧ Transcript Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics—Lecture 5: Property, Scarcity and Ideas; Examining Rights-Based Arguments for IP Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, April 12, 2011 00:00:00
STEPHAN KINSELLA: … like he usually does. How is everybody doing tonight? Is everyone – is it night for everyone? Do we have any foreigners here online yet? I don’t see a way – Gwen wants to know about popping the media to your panel. I don’t see a way to do it, so what we’re going to do is I’m going to share my desktop later when I get to that video, so that’s down the line. So let’s get going. I spent actually a couple of hours today on a blog post, which we’ll get to shortly.
00:00:43
So today we’re going to focus on sort of the libertarian Austrian framework that you need to have to look at all this stuff the right way. We’ve kind of gone through the conventional views, the sort of confused natural rights views for IP, the utilitarian views. But now let’s approach it from the ground up the way it makes more sense. Oh, I didn’t change the date on this slide. It’s not December 10, but everything else has changed. Sorry about that. Okay, I’m going to go through a few posts I did on C4SIF in the last seven days, and also I left a few in from the last version of this course because they were pretty substantive, meaty posts that make good material.
00:01:30
What I’ve been doing actually is I listen the day before these lectures to the one I gave on the same day last course to kind of remind myself of what I covered that wasn’t planned. And that way I can gradually improve these. But anyway, and I decided to leave some of the things in, but we’ll get to those in a second. So the post I spent a lot of time on today was this one here, the first one, “Mossoff: Why Business Leaders Should Care About Intellectual Property.”
00:01:58
This is on slide two. By the way, can everyone see and hear me okay? Anyone – anyone? Sound okay? Too loud? Too quiet? Or is it all right? Fine, good. This is the shirt, by the way, I was given when I went to Austin and gave a speech on IP. Norman Horn gave me this and Coke paid for it so I’m happy about that.
00:02:24
00:02:27
So Adam Mossoff is a law professor at GMU. He’s an objectivist. He’s one of the few people still trying to come up with a way to justify intellectual property and in particular from the objectivists or Ayn Rand’s point of view. So if you want to read that post, I kind of go through a lot of problems with his speech. He gave a long lecture, and it’s just full of confusions and errors, and I think most of you just from taking this course, you can see a lot of the mistakes he makes.
00:02:58
He makes the mistake of basically assuming there’s a property in value and also of assuming that you create a thing called value that you have a property right in without recognizing that what you really do when you create or produce is you transform with your effort owned property that you already own, and you make it more valuable. So property rights don’t really factor into the new wealth that you created. The wealth is just the more valuable configuration of your property that you’ve transformed with your effort. So there’s a lot of other just one mistake after the other in ...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 175.
This is the fourth of six lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course "Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics" (originally presented Tuesdays, Mar. 22-April 26, 2011). The first lecture may be found in KOL172.
Transcript below.
Youtube and slides for this lecture are provided below. The course and other matters are discussed in further detail at KOL172. The “suggested readings” for the entire course are provided in the notes for KOL172.
Lecture 4: IP STATUTES AND TREATIES; OVERVIEW OF JUSTIFICTIONS FOR IP; PROPERTY, SCARCITY AND IDEAS; RIGHTS-BASED ARGUMENTS FOR IP: CREATION AS A SOURCE OF RIGHTS
SUGGESTED READING MATERIAL
See the notes for KOL172. ❧ Transcript Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics—Lecture 4: IP Statutes and Treaties; Overview of Justifications for IP; Property, Scarcity and Ideas; Rights-based Arguments for IP; Creation as a Source of Rights Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, April 12, 2011 00:00:00
STEPHAN KINSELLA: … economics association groups, and Sheldon Richman is an anti-IP libertarian guy with the Foundation for Economic Education. He’s editor of The Freeman. He’s written some good stuff on IP as well, and he was there. Roderick Long was there, who’s also good on IP, and some other people and also this guy named Adam Mossoff who I’ve mentioned before I think. He’s an objectivist law professor at George Mason. He’s pro-intellectual property, and he gives this typical Randian line for it. And Sheldon was relating to me his interaction with this guy and how the debate went. It was quite fascinating.
00:00:37
Apparently, Mossoff really didn’t like getting questions and didn’t really know how to respond to a lot of questions to defend the IP view. So I think that spurred Sheldon to pose this morning a question for Randian IP advocates. It’s already got a lot of comments on the thread. Check it out. He basically said I want to ask the Randians if you believe that their property rights come from getting property in things that you value, which is their theory, which we’ll go into later today or next class.
00:01:15
Imagine a simple society where there’s a tribe and there’s one guy who explores – does a lot of investigation trying to figure out the best kind of fruit to eat, and he discovers that there’s a lot of berries around and people eat them. Sometimes they do better. Sometimes they get sick. And he discovered there’s one berry that is really good, healthy, and nourishing, and he also discovers there’s a few that you should not eat.
00:01:42
And according to the Randian theory, it would seem like he has an intellectual property right in that knowledge, in that technique. And so the question is do the other people in the village who have observed what he’s doing and they see which berries he’s eating and not eating now, do they have the right to eat the berries they want to eat and not eat they berries they want to eat? Or do they have to get his permission first? So he asked them this question as sort of a test of their theory, and of course the answer is, according to their theory, he would not be able – these people need his permission, which is, of course, absurd, which is the point of the hypo, to make them uncomfortable. I don’t expect any serious Randians that would attempt to address it, but it’s interesting.
00:02:23
I had a post this week on Mises, and C4SIF, “Let’s Make Copyright Opt-OUT.” I think I mentioned this already to the class before that copyright would be better if it was opt-in, which means you don’t get a copyright unless you apply for it, register for it, which used to be the law in the US until ’89, 1989. But when we joined the Berne Convention, we got rid of formalities, so it’s automatic now. And it would be better if we could get rid of that because it would solve this so-called orphan works problem.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 174.
This is the third of six lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course "Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics" (originally presented Tuesdays, Mar. 22-April 26, 2011). The first lecture may be found in KOL172.
Youtube and slides for this lecture are provided below. The course and other matters are discussed in further detail at KOL172. The “suggested readings” for the entire course are provided in the notes for KOL172.
Transcript below.
Lecture 3: EXAMINING THE UTILITARIAN CASE FOR IP
SUGGESTED READING MATERIAL
See the notes for KOL172. ❧ Transcript Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics—Lecture 3: Examining the Utilitarian Case for IP Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, April 5, 2011 00:00:00
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, where we left off. We talked the first two lectures about the different types of IP, basically the law, what the law is, the positive law. And I explained that this course will and why it will focus on patent and copyright. Also, we had a good deal of discussion about the historical origins of patent and copyright, how copyright arose from government censorship and patents from monopoly privilege.
00:00:28
00:00:34
So today’s lecture – I’m going to go over the – a little bit more about what this history has resulted in, the entire overview of the kind of modern web of treaties and statutes, legislation that defines and governs all of these different IP rights just to give you a good overview of what it’s like. Then we’re going to basically discuss the main two justifications offered for intellectual property, which is the – basically the principled case, which is rights-based or deontological or natural law-based, and the more practical wealth-maximization-based, which you could call utilitarian or consequentialist.
00:01:13
[indiscernible_00:01:15] are sort of all over the map, and they don’t really label themselves very clearly. Hello, test, test. Can you hear me? My microphone level is not going up. Okay. And I would like to spend a little time going over – I mean I find it astonishing how many – I was just picking through the posts I posted in just the last week alone since the last course, the last seven days on C4SIF.
00:01:43
Now, I do post a lot there, and I think I put about one-third of those posts here to summarize, to discuss. And there’s just so much news on a daily basis of trademark, trade secret, patent, especially patent and copyright news, usually completely outrageous cases of abuse and injustice. Okay, so I’m going to go over here a few of those just to give you a flavor of what’s going on. Jock says the Death of ACTA song was taken down in a copyright claim today. I did not know that. I’m curious what the – who claimed copyright in – oh my God, yeah. Techdirt – that was on Techdirt. I might post that later. Thanks for posting that.
00:02:39
Mike Masnick is the guy at Techdirt, and he’s a friend, and he’s actually on the board of my C4SIF. And he is so prolific. I can’t keep up with the guy. He posts more anti-IP stuff than I can ever hope to. I’ll put this microphone right in front of me, see if that works a little bit better.
00:02:57
So here’s one here. Lawmakers are pushing for a rogue websites bill. So this is just I think last week. Some congressmen vowed to pass legislation to give the justice department new authority to go after foreign and domestic websites that sell pirated music and movies and counterfeit goods. So now we have rogue websites. I did a post called “Patent Defendants Aren’t Copycats. So Who’s the Real Inventor Here?”
00:03:32
By the way, almost all these are live links in the PowerPoint file that you can click on to go to the – you might be able to do it right now actually – to go to the link. They’re all on C4SIF.org highlighted at the top there. So in this post here,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 173.
This is the second of six lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course "Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics" (originally presented Tuesdays, Mar. 22-April 26, 2011). The first lecture may be found in KOL172.
Youtube and slides for this lecture are provided below. The course and other matters are discussed in further detail at KOL172. The “suggested readings” for the entire course are provided in the notes for KOL172.
Transcript below.
Lecture 2: OVERVIEW OF JUSTIFICATIONS FOR IP; PROPERTY, SCARCITY, AND IDEAS
SUGGESTED READING MATERIAL: See the notes for KOL172. ❧ Transcript Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics—Lecture 2: Overview of Justifications for IP; Property, Scarcity, and Ideas Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, March 29, 2011 00:00:01
STEPHAN KINSELLA: … check today. If there are any that I’ve missed, please alert me, and we can talk about them later, or I’ll answer them after the class. Okay, so I think my name is showing up correctly now because I’m just another panelist with you guys, and Danny is Mises Institute. So Danny, can you hear me? Are we good to go? Okay, I uploaded the slide myself. That worked okay.
00:00:29
Okay, good evening everybody, glad to be back, and let’s resume with the talk, and we’re going to pick up where we left off if I can find – there we go. Okay, so this week I’m going to do something I did last class, which worked out pretty good. I mean I have this blog at – it’s C4SIF. Let me see if I can turn on the laser pointer actually. I had trouble last time. It’s not going to let me do it. Never mind. I have a blog or a site called C4SIF.org, and I post regularly various IP-related items.
00:01:12
There’s probably one about every maybe two or three a day. There’s so many things to blog about, so that’s a good way to keep up with what’s going on. And so in the beginning of each class, I have an Outrages of the Week, and I just kind of go through quickly some of the things I posted in the last week or two of the course actually. It’s hard to keep up because there’s so many things going on. So anyway, like I said, it’s C4SIF.org, which is a think tank I started, or really just kind of a private research foundation I started last year. It means Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom. But basically it’s about getting rid of IP law so we have innovative freedom.
00:01:54
The New Grave Robbers – I’ll just go through a few of these right here. The New Grave Robbers is about – let me see if I can turn on this laser pointer somehow. It’s not letting me do it. I’m not sure where it is on here. Anyway, so the New Grave Robbers is about a type of IP right called the right of publicity, which is – it’s called grave robbers because it’s lasting past the death of the famous person in some American states. And it’s being used more and more. It’s called a right of publicity or an identity right, and one recent case is the Tolkien estate. It’s trying to block a novel that uses Tolkien as a character. So this could threaten historical fiction, so this is an example of one type of IP law can actually restrict free speech and free expression.
00:02:52
Here’s a blog post about recent IP cartel advances. This was – a lot of these are reposts of other people’s blogs. But this is about how in Europe there’s steam for motion against agitation for changing the law and adding new IP rights and strengthening IP law even in Sweden and in Italy and in France. So you can browse that later. We have a lot to go through, so I’m just going to go through some of these quickly. You can read these blogs. These are all linked, by the way, on the slides.
00:03:27
Owning language, using trademark law, a lot of companies are fighting over the use of words. This has always been done, but it seems to be an increasing problem. Right now,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 172.
This is the first of six lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course "Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics" (Tuesdays, Mar. 22–April 26, 2011), which was a reprise of a similar Mises Academy course in October 2010. The slides and video for this lecture, as well as the “suggested readings” for all six lectures of the course are provided below. The other five lectures follow in subsequent podcast episodes KOL173–177.
Transcript below.
Related Material
Youtube playlist for all 6 lectures This course was discussed in “Rethinking IP,” Mises Daily (Feb. 10, 2011), and on the Mises Blog in Study with Kinsella Online and in Rethinking Intellectual Property: Kinsella’s Mises Academy Online Course. The course and other matters are discussed in further detail here. This course followed an earlier presentation in 2010; see "Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics," Mises Daily (Oct. 22, 2010; archived comments), and "Understanding IP: An Interview with Stephan Kinsella," Mises Daily (Oct. 21, 2010, with Jeffrey A. Tucker) (Transcript of Understanding IP: An Interview with Stephan Kinsella (2010)). Lecture 1 from the 2010 course is here.
Introductory video from the Mises Blog post Kinsella Can Be Your Professor:
Lecture 1: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN HISTORY
SUGGESTED READING MATERIAL
The "suggested readings" for each lecture are appended below. The links were internal Mises Academy links so would not work here, so until I find time to code in the links, most of these materials can be found on stephankinsella.com/publications, c4sif.org/resources, mises.org, hanshoppe.com/publications, or on Wikipedia or by google search. (If there is a particular link you cannot find online, email me or add to the comments, and I'll try to find it and update the post with that link.)
Main Texts
Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property (AIP)
Boldrin & Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly (AIM)
LECTURE 1: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN HISTORY
SUGGESTED READINGS
Legal Background:
AIP, pp. 9-14
Optional
Copyright Basics (US Copyright Office) URL
Copyright overview (LII/Cornell) URL
Patent law overview (LII/Cornell) URL
Patent introductory information (Ladas & Parry) URL
US Patent law information (USPTO) URL
History:
AIM, ch. 2, pp. 33-35 ("World Before Copyright" section); ch. 3, pp. 48-51 ("World Without Patent" section).
AIP, pp. 9-14
Statute of Anne (Wikipedia) URL
Stationers' Company (Wikipedia) URL
History of patent law (Wikipedia) URL
Letters Patent (Wikipedia) URL
Statute of Monopolies 1624 (Wikipedia) URL
Optional
Krummenacker, Are "Intellectual Property Rights" Justified? (Historical Origins section)
Palmer, Intellectual Property: A Non-Posnerian Law and Economics Approach (pp. 264-71)
A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States (Ladas & Parry)
LECTURE 2: OVERVIEW OF JUSTIFICATIONS FOR IP; PROPERTY, SCARCITY, AND IDEAS
SUGGESTED READINGS
Law
Defamation (Wikipedia)--beginning to Section 5 only
Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy
History
Machlup, "An Economic Review of the Patent System" [pp. 2-5]
Optional
Machlup & Penrose, “The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century,” [pp. 2-6, et pass.]
Frumkin, "The Origin of Patents"
Economic and Utilitarian Arguments
AIP, pp. 19-23
Optional
AIM, ch. 7, esp. pp. 176-201 Kinsella, There’s No Such Thing as a Free Patent
Machlup, "An Economic Review of the Patent System" [pp.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 171.
I was a guest yesterday (Feb. 6, 2015) on Albert Lu's "The Economy" podcast, discussing my recent appearance on Stossel [Stossel Show on Intellectual Property (Fox Business Channel, Jan. 30, 2015)]. The full episode is here; the portion including only our interview is included in this podcast feed.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 170.
Episode 325 of the Tom Woods Show: Are Corporations Un-Libertarian?
From Tom's show notes (with a few additions from me): Corporations aren’t people, say protestors. Corporations are creatures of the state, say some libertarians. Is there any merit to these complaints? Should libertarians support the corporate form or not? That’s the topic of discussion on today’s episode, with guest Stephan Kinsella. Related Writing by the Guest “Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation” “In Defense of the Corporation” “Legitimizing the Corporation” “Causation and Aggression” (with Patrick Tinsley)
[See also:
KOL115 | Mises Canada Austrian AV Club—Kinsella and the Corporation on Trial (2012) KOL100 | The Role of the Corporation and Limited Liability In a Free Society (PFS 2013) KOL 026 | FreeDomain Radio with Stefan Molyneux discussing Corporations and Limited Liability Left-Libertarianism on Corporations and Limited Liability Rothbard on Corporations and Limited Liability for Tort Comment on Knapp’s Big Government, Big Business — Conjoined Twins
Pilon on Corporations: A Discussion with Kevin Carson
This Reminds Me of Some Left-Libertarian Criticisms of “Big Business” Defending Corporations: Block and Huebert Run! Run! It’s a Business in a Box! Legitimizing the Corporation and Other Posts
] Book by the Guest Against Intellectual Property Book Mentioned Robert Hessen, In Defense of the Corporation
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 169.
I was interviewed today by Daniel Rothschild for his "Live Free, Die Old" Youtube channel. We discussed primarily the fallacious argument that Lockean-libertarian-based property titles are flawed if they are based on conquest or cannot be traced back to the first homesteader.
Background material:
Rothbard on the “Original Sin” in Land Titles: 1969 vs. 1974 Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe on the “Original Sin” in the Distribution of Property Rights Justice and Property Rights: Rothbard on Scarcity, Property, Contracts… Property Title Records and Insurance in a Free Society
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 168.
Jeffrey Tucker Interviews Stephan Kinsella on Samsung-Apple trial, Laissez-Faire Club (Aug. 27, 2012).
Video below.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 167.
I was a guest in July 2012 on the Liberty Minded show Speaking on Liberty, discussing intellectual property. The hosts, Kyle Platt, Jason Lee Byas, and Grayson English, were very good and asked excellent questions. The show is here, and the video is embedded below.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 166.
I was a guest back on June 6, 2012 on the Peter Schiff Show (guest host Jeff Tucker), discussing problems with patent law. The original audio file for the full show is here; my segment was from 1:00:55 to the end (about 20 minutes total). For the podcast feed I have included only my segment.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 165.
This is my Austrian AV Club Interview by Redmond Weissenberger, Director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada, back from May 3, 2012. We had a long-ranging discussion of intellectual property and libertarian theory, including a discussion about exactly how Ayn Rand and other libertarians got off track on this issue, in part because of flaws regarding "labor" and "creationism" in Locke's original homesteading argument; inconsistencies between Rand's support for IP and her recognition that production means rearranging existing property; and also the different roles of scarce means and knowledge in the praxeological structure of human action. (For more on these issues, see my blog posts Locke on IP; Mises, Rothbard, and Rand on Creation, Production, and ‘Rearranging’, Hume on Intellectual Property and the Problematic “Labor” Metaphor, Rand on IP, Owning “Values”, and ‘Rearrangement Rights’, and The Patent Defense League and Defensive Patent Pooling, and my article "Intellectual Freedom and Learning Versus Patent and Copyright.")
The video is below as well. (Trivia: I used my iPad, running the Skype app, for this interview. More stable and better camera than a MacBook.)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 164.
Friday, Sep. 23, 2011, I conducted a Mises Academy Webinar discussing the America Invents Act, signed into law Sept. 16 2011 by President Obama. I discussed the webinar in a Mises Daily article, Obama’s Patent Reform: Improvement or Continuing Calamity? and discussed the AIA in further detail in The American Invents Act and Patent Reform: The Good, the Meh, and the Ugly.
In the webinar, I:
summarized the basic problem with patent law from a free-market perspective; presented a series of real patent reforms that could make significant improvement in patent law (short of abolition); explained and critiqued the relevant changes made by the America Invents Act; briefly summarized other imminent IP legislation and treaties on the horizon; and responded to questions from attendees.
The slides used in the webinar are provided below.
Video
Slides:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 163.
I was interviewed yesterday by James Sirois of the Critical Thinking is Required podcast, episode 27. The shownotes are below: Released: December 2, 2014 By: James In CTIR Interview 27: Stephan Kinsella (Intellectual Property), I interview Stephan Kinsella about intellectual property. Specifically, we discuss copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secret law. Additionally, we analyze how these various types of law stifle innovation and competition.
Critical Thinking is Required is a political and educational podcast for individuals with endless curiosity.
Thank you for listening to CTIR. If you enjoyed the show, please share it with your friends.
http://criticalthinkingisrequired.com
Thank you Mevio’s Music Alley for providing license free music.
The intro and outro song is titled "Power Within Me" by Junga World.
Sources:
https://www.stephankinsella.com/ http://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0 http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/argument-preview-justices-will-use-rare-look-at-trademark-law-to-consider-broad-and-narrow-conceptions-of-trademarks/
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 162.
Interview on IP and libertarianism by Fabrizio Sitzia, LibertariaNation.org (Italy) (April 15, 2012; recorded Feb. 23, 2012)
I was interviewed Feb. 23, 2012, by Fabrizio Sitzia of the Italian libertarian group LibertariaNation.org. It was posted on YouTube. We discussed intellectual property and related issues such as SOPA, plagiarism, IP-by-contract, and other libertarian issues such as prospects for liberty in the future; the importance of technology, the Internet, and globalism; Ron Paul and electoral politics; and libertarian sentiments and receptiveness among today’s young people. (See also Italian Libertarian IP Debate.)
More info at the LibertariaNation post Intervista a Stephan Kinsella (English translation from Google translate).
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 161.
This was my (remotely delivered) presentation at the 6th Adam Smith Forum, Moscow, Russia (Nov. 2, 2014):
From the programme: "Entitled "Argumentation Ethics, Estoppel, and Libertarian Rights," Kinsella discusses the nature and definition of libertarianism and surveys different arguments and theories for its particular conception of rights and politics, including natural rights, consequentialist, and utilitarian approaches. He concludes with an overview of two more recent and unique approaches to justifying libertarian rights, the "argumentation ethics" approach of Austrian economist and political philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and Kinsella's own "estoppel" theory of rights." This is my second speech at the Adam Smith Forum; the first was “Why Intellectual Property is not Genuine Property,” 3rd Adam Smith Forum, Moscow, Russia (Nov. 12, 2011), also via remote video.
I did not prepare a new powerpoint but I drew heavily on the one linked here, and included below. Here is the transcript.
The main resources I drew on, which I mentioned in the lecture, include:
New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights How We Come To Own Ourselves
These issued were also discussed in further detail in previous Mises Academy courses:
KOL155 | “The Social Theory of Hoppe: Lecture 3: Libertarian Rights and Argumentation Ethics” (the slides for this lecture are appended below; links for“suggested readings” for the course are included in the podcast post for the first lecture, episode 153) KOL108 | “Why ‘Intellectual Property’ is not Genuine Property,” Adam Smith Forum, Moscow (2011)
SLIDES FOR THE SOCIAL THEORY OF HOPPE: LECTURE 3: LIBERTARIAN RIGHTS AND ARGUMENTATION ETHICS
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 160.
I was on Ben Stone's "Bad Quaker" podcast yesterday, episode 449. We discussed IP and then some of Ben's previous comments on Hans-Hermann Hoppe's views on immigration law.
Related links:
Bad Quaker podcast: 0448 pc383 Hoppe’s Immigration (corrected) Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “Immigration And Libertarianism” at Lew Rockwell My article Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 159.
This is my seminar, Practical Solutions to the IP Trap, delivered to Liberty.me members on May 19, 2014, based on my monograph Do Business Without Intellectual Property (Liberty.me, 2014). This discussion, moderated by Matt Gilliland, provides an overview of IP and the issues faced by people in their careers and lives and offers suggestions as to how to ethically and practically navigate challenges posed by the existing IP system.
Transcript below.
Youtube:
See also:
Profiting without IP “Conversation with an author about copyright and publishing in a free society” (Jan. 23, 2012) Do Business Without Intellectual Property (Liberty.me, 2014) “Innovations that Thrive without IP,” StephanKinsella.com (Aug. 9, 2010) “Examples of Ways Content Creators Can Profit Without Intellectual Property,” StephanKinsella.com (July 28, 2010) “The Creator-Endorsed Mark as an Alternative to Copyright,” Mises Economics Blog (July 15, 2010) Diomavro, Avengers endgame or do movies need copyright? Creators SHOULDN’T Own their Creations
TRANSCRIPT Liberty.me Seminar: Practical Solutions to the IP Trap Stephan Kinsella Liberty.me, May 19, 2014
00:00:10
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Let me briefly define the background, the topic, and if I say anything that is confusing or anyone has questions, feel free to raise your hand, and Matt can let me know and I’d be happy to address something that I go over too quickly or that needs more elaboration. Intellectual property, in the modern, capitalist, 21st century age, is an entrenched part of the western legal system, America, Europe, etc. and other countries as the west tries to push it and gets it entrenched in those countries. It is considered widely to be part of the capitalist, property rights system. In fact, patent and copyright, trademark and trade secret and other types of intellectual property are called intellectual property for a reason.
00:00:59
It was for a propaganda reason to try to get these things thought of as a property right. Originally, they were thought of as privileges or policy tools by the monarch or the state, but under attack by free-market defenders, the proponents of IP started calling them property rights. So this is where we are now. We have a system where patent law, copyright law, trademark, trade secret, and other types of IP, which I can go into, are basically part of the landscape.
00:01:36
Now, the libertarian position, which I’ve argued for over a decade now, almost two decades now – the libertarian position is that patent and copyright law and other types of IP law are completely, 100% incompatible with free markets, competition, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and individual property rights. So I’m totally opposed to patent and copyright law. I don’t think we should reform it. That would be a good step. But I think we should totally abolish it. I believe that patents impose hundreds of billions of dollars of damage on the economy of the US, let’s say, every year.
00:02:27
I believe copyrights also impose damage and cultural distortion, and it represses and suppresses freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and it arms the state to come up with excuses to regulate the internet and restrict internet and digital freedom. So there’s basically nothing whatsoever good about patent and copyright and other forms of intellectual property like trademark and trade secret. But they are definitely entrenched, so that’s a fact of the modern world.
00:03:01
And I’ve talked at length on this. I’ve got tons of podcasts and lectures and articles, and so do other people, which I have collected at my website, C4SIF.org. So the background is that we live in a world with lots of non-free-market, non-libertarian interventions and measures and policies and practices and institutions like the drug war, taxation, minimum wage law, regulations,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 158.
This is the final of 6 lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course “The Social Theory of Hoppe.”
The slides for this lecture are appended below; links for“suggested readings” for the course are included in the podcast post for the first lecture, episode 153.
Transcript below.
LECTURE 6: POLITICAL ISSUES AND APPLICATIONS; HOPPE Q&A
Video
Slides
TRANSCRIPT The Social Theory of Hoppe, Lecture 6: Political Issues and Applications; Hoppe Q&A Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, Aug. 15, 2011
00:00:01
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Final class. We have a lot to cover. Before I start, let me say don’t be intimidated by the length of the slides if you see them later. There’s a lot of slides. I put a lot of text in there for your reading pleasure later. We’ll skim over some of that. It’s there for – just for a full sort of, almost like a paper for you to study later and for resources. I’m going to try to cover as much of it as I can, and I suspect we’re going to go the full 90 minutes on the lecture. And I’ll be happy to stay as long as we need after that for Q&A, so that’s my plan.
00:00:39
So let’s get going. Slide two. So we talked about economic issues and applications last week. We have a few more to finish tonight, and I will post the final quiz later this week. I think only maybe 15-20% of the class took the midterm, which is fine. You’re not – don’t feel under an obligation to take it. But some of you might find it fun and a good refresher, and you’re not really graded on a per-class basis. It’s just personal grading. So today, we’re going to cover the – we’re going to finish the economic applications and issues from last time.
00:01:19
We’re going to go over the Hoppe Q&A. He did provide me with answers to a bunch of questions that you guys submitted. And then we’re going to talk about a variety of political issues and applications. In addition to the ones we’ve already discussed, of course, argumentation ethics, which is a political-type issue, but some other applications tonight. I didn’t give any suggested readings for this week. There’s just so many little issues. All the links are in these slides, and we’re going to go over them tonight.
00:01:48
So I thought that was sufficient rather than giving you – Karl is asking about the midterm. I don’t – I think it’s probably close already, but Danny can let you know that. If it’s not, I wouldn’t mind having it held open a little bit longer if people who haven’t taken it yet want to take it. Okay, fine. Stephen says it’s still open, so just – it’s only 16 or 18 questions, all multiple choice. Some are funny. Some are harder. Some are easy, so feel free to take it as a refresher.
00:02:21
00:02:28
Karl says sounds went out. Can anyone else hear me? Okay, Karl, it’s your issue. Maybe Danny can help you. Okay, now – so I’m going to get to one of the remaining issues that we had here. I’m only – I’m going to go over these, and a lot of them cover what I think are the highlights so that we can cover a lot. Okay. So a brief review. There is, in the Austrian economics literature, an issue called the “Economic Calculation Debate,” 1920 or so.
00:03:10
Mises wrote a famous article where he argued that one problem with a centrally planned socialist economy, that is, an economy where the government, the state owns the means of production, is that there won’t be market prices for these things. And therefore, you won’t know how to compare alternative projects. When entrepreneurs think about the future, they compare possible uses of resources they have available. And they compare them in terms of what kind of profit they can make in the future, that is, monetary profit.
00:03:42
So the only way to do that is to try to imagine, if I do project A, I might make a million dollars. If I do project B, I might make $2 million, etc.,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 157.
This is the fifth of 6 lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course “The Social Theory of Hoppe.” I’ll release the final lecture here in the podcast feed shortly.
The slides for this lecture are appended below; links for“suggested readings” for the course are included in the podcast post for the first lecture, episode 153.
Transcript below.
LECTURE 5: ECONOMIC ISSUES AND APPLICATIONS
Video
Slides
TRANSCRIPT The Social Theory of Hoppe, Lecture 5: Economic Issues and Applications Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, Aug. 8, 2011 00:00:00
STEPHAN KINSELLA: … question about – someone sent me in the class course page. Well, I mean if you’re just asking me my opinion, I mean I don’t think Hoppe has written very much on abortion. I actually did include an abortion question in the questions I submitted to him that hopefully he’ll give us some feedback on it for discussion next week. I believe he is generally pro-choice because I remember he asked me one time about, oh, 12 or 15 years ago to try to come up with an argument to justify it. So I don’t know. I’m not assuming there is a flaw in Rothbard’s argument about abandoning the fetus.
00:00:52
My personal view is that certain actions give rise to positive obligations. So if you harm someone or put them in a position of peril, then – push someone in a lake who can’t swim, you have an obligation to rescue them. And I think there’s a similar argument that, because of the nature, the dependent nature of the child, that you have positive obligations to your children because you brought them into the world. So that’s the basic argument. I mean another could be that the fetus is a human who has a right to life, and there is no reason the parent needs to kill it. It’s not really a threat. Now, there are some people written – there’s a book called Solomon’s Knife by Victor Koman, a libertarian science fiction novel, which posits this trans-option procedure.
00:01:47
And the idea is that medical technology permits any woman who’s pregnant to take the baby out and put it into another host mother. So there’s really no reason anymore to have abortions. If you want the baby out, you give it to another woman. That would change the complexity of the debate. Okay, so let’s get going. So I have a lot of slides here. I don’t think we’re going to cover them all. The ones that we don’t cover we’ll talk about next time. A lot of these topics blend into politics and economics.
00:02:20
So some of these are somewhat political as well, and so it would make sense to cover these in the next week as well. So where we left off, we talked about epistemology, and last week, economic methodology and dualism. Okay, so for the methodology part. Today, I want to continue the end of that lecture and talk about a few more things, and then we’ll get to some economic issues and applications. And you see the suggested readings I have here. For next week’s classes, a lot of smaller topics. A lot of blog posts cover these. I don’t know if I will assign the reading ahead of time, but I will have links in the slides for all the things we talk about.
00:03:04
00:03:08
Okay, so let’s go to slide five. Excuse me a second. Let me close my door. Excuse me. Okay, I mentioned last time in the epistemology discussion, there’s a lot of hostility by Rand and objectivists to Kant. And as I mentioned, that is directed towards an idealistic, subjectivist-type interpretation or construction of what Kant wrote. And to the extent they’re characterizing him correctly, I think a lot of their criticisms make sense.
00:03:49
But there – as I mentioned, there’s a realist tradition of Kant that Hoppe and Mises share, and so actually, there’s a lot more similarity between Hoppe and Mises-style Kantianism and Rand’s own view of epistemology. So for example, Ayn Rand talked about an axiom, if you remember,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 156.
This is the fourth of 6 lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course “The Social Theory of Hoppe.” I’ll release the remaining lectures here in the podcast feed in upcoming days.
The slides for this lecture are appended below; links for“suggested readings” for the course are included in the podcast post for the first lecture, episode 153.
Transcript below.
Lecture 4: EPISTEMOLOGY, METHODOLOGY AND DUALISM; KNOWLEDGE, CERTAINTY, LOGICAL POSITIVISM
Video
Slides TRANSCRIPT The Social Theory of Hoppe, Lecture 4: Epistemology, Methodology, and Dualism; Knowledge, Certainty, Logical Positivism Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, Aug. 1, 2011 00:00:01
STEPHAN KINSELLA: … and methodology and epistemological dualism, the Austrian approach. So if you recall, last time we talked about argumentation ethics and libertarian rights, and as I said, the midterm will be posted shortly. And some of you may be interested in the IP talk I gave at Mises University on Wednesday, which I have a link to here on the slide two. And Hoppe also gave two – he has several lectures, but two of them are particularly relevant for tonight actually. The science of human action and praxeology as a method of economics are both great. They cover a lot of what we’re going to talk about tonight, actually.
00:00:42
00:00:47
So we’re going to talk epistemology and methodology and dualism, which are the Misesian approach, and related aspects of logical positivism and knowledge and certainty. And I’m just going to outline here the readings I had suggested that you read with certain pages of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, Hoppe’s pamphlet, “Economic Science and the Austrian Method.” I have my ragged old copy here from years in the past. I don’t know what the current version looks like, notes, so this is my favorite copy, and another paper from EEPP and another journal article on rationalism.
00:01:25
And then there are some supplemental readings if you want to go further. But we’re going to try to cover as much as we can here. So let’s start off talking about what we’re talking – the subject of our lecture is the economic science and the methodology appropriate economic science or the discipline of economics. So what do we mean by the word science? I mean when I was in college and growing up, the word science to me meant what most people think of it now as technology, gadgets, gizmos, physics, theories, chemistry, things like this, things that are testable.
00:02:01
This is actually sort of a fairly new twist on the word science as caused by the rise of positivism and empiricism and what we might call scientism. It’s a much older term of course. You see the little diagram on the right of some spooky government agency, the Information Awareness Office, but they have the all-knowing eye on top of the pyramid looking at the earth and the motto, Scientia est Potentia, which means knowledge is power. So you see the word science there, meaning just general knowledge. In the Lionel Robbins, famous sort of proto-Austrian economist, at one point, wrote a treatise in 1932, very influential treatise until the ‘50s probably called “The Nature and Significance of Economic Science.”
00:02:57
So you can see the word science is being used for even economics, although nowadays, most people would restrict it to the technical or natural sciences. Back in the US Constitution in 1789, in the clause authorizing patent and copyright, look at how the words are arranged here. This is the power granted to Congress to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries.
00:03:30
So I’ve got in red here the words that pair together: science, authors, and writings. Now, most people would think science has to do with inventions and inventors and discoveries. But no,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 155.
This is the third of 6 lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course "The Social Theory of Hoppe." I’ll release the remaining lectures here in the podcast feed in upcoming days.
The slides for this lecture are appended below; links for "suggested readings" for the course are included in the podcast post for the first lecture, episode 153.
Transcript below.
LECTURE 3: LIBERTARIAN RIGHTS AND ARGUMENTATION ETHICS
Video
Slides TRANSCRIPT The Social Theory of Hoppe, Lecture 3: Libertarian Rights and Argumentation Ethics Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, July 25, 2011 00:00:01
STEPHAN KINSELLA: … later. So tonight we’ll talk about argumentation ethics. I have a lot of slides, but some of them will go very fast because they’re just background in case you want to look at them later or if we need some quotes. But let’s go ahead and dive right into tonight’s lecture. By the way, before we start, I’m curious. Who here – well, let me get to the readings page first. I don’t know if I have that up there. Who here read more than the required or suggested reading and onto the more optional reading? I’m just curious how many students have actually read into the argumentation ethics literature beyond the basic stuff I recommended. Anyone?
00:00:49
00:00:54
Okay, Jacob has. Jacob, I’m curious. What did you read beyond the basic stuff? Method essay. For argumentation ethics? Okay. In any case – oh, just by the way, so we’ll have a short quiz for the first – covering the first three weeks, which will start – I’ll have it posted in a few days. I’m leaving tomorrow morning, by the way, for the Mises University, so I’ll be traveling tomorrow, but I’ll try to get it up in a couple days. I wanted to finish this class first before I finish the test so I could make sure I covered only what we talked about in class. Oh interesting, Jacob. Good, so you’ve read a lot. Well, maybe you can help me with some of the difficult questions in here.
00:01:45
So the multiple-choice test will be up in a few days. It’s optional. Don’t feel compelled to take it if you don’t want to. It’s not meant to make anyone feel like they’re going to fail or anything. It’s just a refresher on the course. It’s going to be fun, test your knowledge, and to get the certificate if you’d like. And again, it’s based upon what I say in the lectures, the slides, and also the reading material I mark as suggested but not on the optional reading material.
00:02:11
00:02:15
Okay, so last class we talked about various property issues, how the state arises and the nature of the state, the types of socialism. We started to talk about de-socialization. I don’t know if we’ll have time to get to that tonight. I do have some slides on it at the very end, but I doubt we’ll be able to get to it very much. Anyway, the article is pretty self-explanatory in any case. Maybe we can cover it in lecture number six on political topics or number five on economic topics.
00:02:46
By the way, let me – well, we’ll talk at the end a bit about – next class will be on epistemology and methodology. Okay, so today we’re going to talk about libertarian rights and argumentation ethics. By the way, I have this little mini ad for my last course because I just want to remind people, I did cover some of this in that course in a more summary fashion. And some of that’s included in these slides. I modified it for tonight, and there’s extra stuff here too, but for anyone who took the previous course, some of this I talked about before. But I’m actually leaving out here a lot of the stuff I talked about in the Libertarian Legal Theory course because it’s not directly pertinent to Hoppe’s approach, but some of this will look familiar to some of you.
00:03:29
So tonight we’re going to talk basically about two main questions. We’re we talk about what libertarianism is,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 154.
This is the second of 6 lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course “The Social Theory of Hoppe.” I’ll release the remaining lectures here in the podcast feed in upcoming days.
The slides for this lecture are appended below; links for“suggested readings” for the course are included in the podcast post for the first lecture, episode 153.
Transcript below.
LECTURE 2: TYPES OF SOCIALISM AND THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE
Video
Slides
TRANSCRIPT The Social Theory of Hoppe, Lecture 2: Types of Socialism and the Origin of the State Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, July 18, 2011 00:00:00
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Can you guys hear me okay? Video and slide showing? Hello? Test, test. Okay, hey, good evening, everyone. It’s 6 p.m. central time US, later for some of you I know. So let’s get started. If there’s any initial questions about last week’s lecture, which I’ll go over some of in a little bit, I’ll be happy to take them now. But tonight, what I would like to concentrate on, I’ll catch up on some of the things I didn’t cover last time and talk about Hoppe’s views on types of socialism and the origin of the state. And I don’t know if I’ll have time to get to de-socialization. So, by the way, I posted last week a couple of funny things to the forums about “Drop It Like It’s Hoppe,” a sort of rap thing by a friend of mine. And also, a Facts About Hoppe, which I thought were amusing, so hope people enjoyed that.
00:01:02
So let’s go on here. So quick review, last class we talked about basically Hoppe’s place in the Austrian and liberal sort of literature and scheme, his influences, his style, his background, his basic orientation. And we talked about basic fundamental property-based and human-action-based, praxeology-based foundational concepts and principles, which run through most of his work, various implications of the human action axiom like conflict and scarcity, choice and cost, and profit and loss, and ends and means and causality, and the sort of methodological dualistic approach of Mises, which basically is looking at the causal world with the scientific method approach and more empirical approach, that is paucity, physical laws, and then trying to test those laws to see if you can falsify your hypothesis, which is the sort of standard way most people think of science.
00:02:14
But the Austrian view is that’s one type of science. Another type of science is the social sciences, which are focused on – can anyone hear me, or is it just Rick that’s having a problem? Okay, so I’ll keep going. Methodological dualism, which looks at the causal world in one sense and which, in the case of humans, would be human behavior, just analyzing what motions human bodies go through, or trying to understand the human ends and means and purposes – excuse me – which is the teleological realm. And from that realm, we know certain things a priori. We know that humans have ends or purposes. They employ means. There’s opportunity cost. They have choice. There’s a presupposition of causality.
00:03:09
If you didn’t presuppose causality, you couldn’t act because action employs means, which are scarce means in the world, which are causally efficacious at achieving your ends, which are believed to be. So an operative presupposition of action would be causality as well. So these are the a priori things that come from this side of dualism. Then we talked about different property-related concepts like contract, aggression, capitalism, socialism, even the state, which are all defined in terms of this fundamental concept of property.
00:03:43
00:03:46
I’m going to go to slide three. So today we’re going to continue the discussion of property, talk about how the state arises and what its definition is, and then talk about different types of socialism or statism. And if we have time, we’ll get to de-socialization, which I doubt we will actually,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 153.
This is the first of 6 lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course “The Social Theory of Hoppe.” I’ll release the remaining lectures here in the podcast feed in upcoming days.
The slides for the first lecture of the Social Theory of Hoppe course are provided below, as are the “suggested readings” for the course.
Transcript below.
[Update: see also David Gordon, “The Political Economy of Hans Hoppe” (Mises University 2021)]
As general background I suggest:
Kinsella, “Foreword,” in Hans-Hermann Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (Laissez Faire Books ebook edition, 2013) Kinsella, “Afterword,” in Hans-Hermann Hoppe, The Great Fiction: Property, Economy, Society, and the Politics of Decline (Laissez Faire Books, 2012) “Introduction,” with Jörg Guido Hülsmann, in Hülsmann & Kinsella, eds., Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Mises Institute, 2009) (published as “Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe,” Mises Daily, Aug. 7, 2009)
LECTURE 1: PROPERTY FOUNDATIONS
Video
Slides
For slides for all six lectures, plus extensive hyperlinked suggested reading material, see this Libertarian Standard post.
SUGGESTED READING MATERIAL
The “suggested readings” for each lecture are appended below. Links, where available, are provided; most of these materials can also be found on stephankinsella.com/publications, c4sif.org/resources, mises.org, hanshoppe.com/publications, or on Wikipedia or by google search.
LECTURE 1: PROPERTY FOUNDATIONS
Chapters 1 & 2, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism [TSC]
LECTURE 2: TYPES OF SOCIALISM AND THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE
TSC Chs. 3-6 De-Socialization in a United Germany “Banking, Nation States and International Politics: A Sociological Reconstruction of the Present Economic Order” (ch. 3 of The Economics and Ethics of Private Property [EEPP])
LECTURE 3: LIBERTARIAN RIGHTS AND ARGUMENTATION ETHICS
SUGGESTED READINGS
Kinsella, “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide” Hoppe: EEPP, chapter 11, “From the Economics of Laissez Faire to the Ethics of Libertarianism,” ch. 12. “The Justice of Economic Efficiency,” and “Appendix: Four Critical Replies”
OPTIONAL READINGS
Kinsella, “New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory” “On the Ultimate Justification of the Ethics of Private Property,” by Hoppe “Beyond Is and Ought,” by Murray N. Rothard “Hoppephobia,” by Rothbard “Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan,” by Stephan Kinsella “Argumentation Ethics and The Philosophy of Freedom,” by Frank Van Dun “Hülsmann on Argumentation Ethics,” by Kinsella
LECTURE 4: EPISTEMOLOGY, METHODOLOGY AND DUALISM; KNOWLEDGE, CERTAINTY, LOGICAL POSITIVISM
Suggested Readings
TSC, Pages 118-144 and 152-155 Economic Science and the Austrian Method Is Research Based on Causal Scientific Principles Possible in the Social Sciences? (ch. 10 of EEPP) In Defense of Extreme Rationalism: Thoughts on Donald McCloskey’s The Rhetoric of Economics [ch. 16 of The Great Fiction]
Optional Readings
Chapter 9. “On Praxeology and the Praxeological Foundation of Epistemology”; ch. 14. “Austrian Rationalism in the Age of the Decline of Positivism” (from EEPP) On Certainty and Uncertainty, Or: How Rational Can Our Expectations Be? [ch. 14, The Great Fiction] The Science of Human Action (lecture)
LECTURE 5: ECONOMIC ISSUES AND APPLICATIONS
Suggested Readings
Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value Hoppe on Liberal Economies and War Hoppe: Marx was “Essentially Correct” Capitalist Production and The Problem of Monopoly (from TSC) Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory & the Production of Security Verstehen and the Role of Economics in Forecasting, or: If You’re so Rich, Why Aren’t You Smart? “Chicago Diversions” in "The Ethics and Economics of Private Pr...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 152.
This is my speech “Libertarianism After Fifty Years: What Have We Learned?” delivered at the NYC LibertyFest (Brooklyn, NY, October 11, 2014). The original title was "Libertarianism After Fifty Years: A Reassessment and Reappraisal" but I was allotted only about 15-20 minutes so condensed the scope and could only touch briefly on many of the matters discussed.
This audio was recorded by me from my iphone in my pocket; video and a higher-quality audio should be available shortly.
The outline and notes used for the speech is appended below, which includes extensive links to further material pertaining to matters discussed in the speech. An edited transcript is available here. Speech Notes/Outline Libertarianism After Fifty Years: What Have We Learned? Stephan Kinsella NYC LibertyFest, Brooklyn, NY October 11, 2014
Introduction
Modern libertarianism is about 50 years old. Main figures: Rand and Rothbard.
“three furies of libertarianism” (Doherty, Radicals for Capitalism): Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand, and Isabel Patterson (1943) Mises, Hayek, Read, Friedman Rand Atlas, 1957; Rothbard, MES, 1962 From a Foreword I wrote for a forthcoming libertarian book: Modern libertarian theory is only about five decades old. The ideas that have influenced our greatest thinkers can be traced back centuries, of course,[1] to luminaries such as Hugo Grotius, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Herbert Spencer, David Hume, and John Stuart Mill, and to more recent and largely even more radical thinkers such as Gustave de Molinari, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Bertrand de Jouvenal, Franz Oppenheimer, and Albert Jay Nock.[2]
The beginnings of the modern movement can be detected in the works of the “three furies of libertarianism,” as Brian Doherty calls them: Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand, and Isabel Patterson, whose respective books The Discovery of Freedom, The Fountainhead, and The God of the Machine were all published, rather remarkably, in the same year: 1943.[3] But in its more modern form, libertarianism originated in the 1960s and 1970s from thinkers based primarily in the United States, notably Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. Other significant influences on the nascent libertarian movement include Ludwig von Mises, author of Liberalism (1927) and Human Action (1949, with a predecessor version published in German in 1940); Nobel laureate F.A. von Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom (1944); Leonard Read, head of the Foundation for Economic Education (founded 1946); and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, author of the influential Capitalism and Freedom (1962).
The most prominent and influential of modern libertarian figures, however, were the aforementioned novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand, the founder of “Objectivism” and a “radical for capitalism,” and Murray Rothbard, the Mises-influenced libertarian anarcho-capitalist economist and political theorist. Rothbard’s seminal role is widely recognized, even by non-Rothbardians. Objectivist John McCaskey, for example, has observed, that out of the debates in the mid-1900s about what rights citizens ought to have,
"grew the main sort of libertarianism of the last fifty years. It was based on a principle articulated by Murray Rothbard in the 1970s this way: No one may initiate the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. The idea had roots in John Locke, America’s founders, and more immediately Ayn Rand, but it was Rothbard’s formulation that became standard. It became known as the non-aggression principle or—since Rothbard took it as the starting point of political theory and not the conclusion of philosophical justification—the non-aggression axiom. In the late twentieth century, anyone who accepted this principle could call himself, or could find himself called, a libertarian, even if he disagreed with Rothbard’s own insistence that rights are best protected when there is no ...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 151.
This is my recent speech “Balancing Intellectual Property Rights and Civil Liberties: A Libertarian Perspective,” presented at Branford College at Yale University, New Haven, CT, Oct. 2, 2014, in a lecture series called “The Politic Presents." It was held in the beautiful Trumbull Room at Branford Court, where the accompanying picture was taken. The initial speech is about 33 minutes and was addressed mainly to non-libertarian undergraduate students. I tried to set the stage for those not familiar with Austrian economics, IP or IP theory, libertarianism, without being too basic. These were smart Yale students, after all.
This was recorded in my iPhone in my suit pocket, but the quality is okay anyway; and it includes the 33 minute initial lecture and the following 20-minute Q&A session, but then I forgot to turn off my iPhone as I walked to a restaurant with a group of students for dinner, so it also includes some informal but fun Q&A and related conversation as we walked to dinner, for the last 10-20 minutes.
Transcript available here.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 150.
An interview by the delightful libertarian couple Caity and Dan Greene, from Glasgow, Scotland. We discussed a variety of liberty-related matters, as noted on their show notes for Episode 10: Stephan Kinsella is Founder and Executive Editor of Libertarian Papers, Founder and Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF), a member of the Editorial Board of Reason Papers, and a member of the Advisory Board of the Lexington Books series Capitalist Thought: Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. A registered patent attorney and former adjunct professor at South Texas College of Law, Stephan has published numerous articles and books on IP law, international law, and the application of libertarian principles to legal topics. He received an LL.M. in international business law from King’s College London, a JD from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center at LSU, and BSEE and MSEE degrees from LSU. He is currently a member of the Advisory Council of theGovernment Wast and Over-regulation Council of the Our America Initiative (2014—), and a Senior Fellow with the Bastiat Institute (2014–). We chat about intellectual property and Stephan's arguments against it, Ayn Rand, free markets, objectivism, anarcho-capitalism, how law may function in a stateless society, the Montessori method of education and more.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 149.
My recent appearance on the Non-Aggression Podcast with host Mike Cuneo, aka 412 Libertarian. We talked about IP, Georgism, Stefan Molyneux's use of the DMCA to do a copyright takedown of a critic on youtube, whether Hitler is responsible for the holocaust, and the like.
From his show notes:
IP And Beyond With Stephan Kinsella – Non-Aggression Podcast
I had the pleasure of speaking at length with Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney, libertarian author and scholar, and head of the Center For The Study of Innovative Freedom, or C4SIV. Stephan also runs the site StephanKinsella.com Causation and Aggression (free PDF file), the paper we spoke about in the later part of the podcast. One of my favorite articles of all time, “What It Means To Be An Anarcho Capitalist.” Kinsella is the author of the groundbreaking book “Against Intellectual Property”(freely available for download) Here is the article that I alluded to when speaking about the marble statue example, as to why creation alone is not sufficient or necessary for ownership.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 148.
I was a guest last night on Freedom Feens (Aug 28, 2014): Stephan Kinsella Battles The Copyright Zombies And Patent Trolls – Freedom Feens live radio archive "Stephan Kinsella is an intellectual property attorney who hates intellectual property laws. He explains why, and what can be done about it. It’s one of the best chats we’ve heard from him yet. Derrick J. Freeman and Davi Barker help. Michael W. Dean isn’t there, and Davi is only there sometimes, because some patent somewhere is messing with their Internet." Some links for matters discussed in the show:
Personal Audio’s podcasting troll patent:http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504 Man sentenced to federal prison for uploading “Wolverine” movie Tim Lee and Lawrence Lessig: “some punishment” of Swartz was “appropriate”; RIAA Celebrates 15 Year Jail Sentence For Movie and Music Pirate; Six Year Federal Prison Sentence for Copyright Infringement; British student Richard O’Dwyer can be extradited to US for having website with links to pirated movies.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 147.
I appeared on the Tom Woods Show today (Aug. 20, 2014, Episode 225), to discuss patents and liberty.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 146.
Update: See also Thoughts on Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery, Alienability vs. Inalienability, Property and Contract, Rothbard and Evers (Jan. 9, 2022).
Transcript below.
Today I had a discussion with Williamson Evers, about his pathbreaking 1977 article Toward a Reformulation of the Law of Contracts, which was the first article ever published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies (Evers's other JLS articles).
This article was relied on heavily by Rothbard, in ch. 19 of The Ethics of Liberty, "Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts." I discuss this piece in detail in my 2003 JLS article A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, and I also discuss it in my post Justice and Property Rights: Rothbard on Scarcity, Property, Contracts….
A fascinating interview. We discussed the genesis of this important theory and related matters. I appreciate greatly Dr. Evers taking time to discuss this matter with me.
Related links:
KOL225 | Reflections on the Theory of Contract (PFS 2017) KOL197 | Tom Woods Show: The Central Rothbard Contribution I Overlooked, and Why It Matters: The Rothbard-Evers Title-Transfer Theory of Contract KOL 029 | First Degree Liberty Interview: Argumentation Ethics and the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract KOL338 | Human Action Podcast Ep. 308 with Jeff Deist: Rothbard on Punishment, Property, and Contract
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/4tIlPMJeilA
TRANSCRIPT Interview of Williamson Evers on the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract Stephan Kinsella and Williamson Evers August 5, 2014 00:00:01
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, this is Stephan Kinsella. I’m here with Mr. Williamson Evers who I’ve never met in person, and he has graciously agreed to discuss with me a topic that I’ve been interested in, in a number of years, the title-transfer theory of contract. And Mr. Evers, how are you doing?
00:00:19
WILLIAMSON EVERS: I’m fine, thank you. So I’m Bill Evers, Williamson M. Evers. I’m a Stanford PhD in political science, and I currently am a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. I was a friend of Murray Rothbard for many years and discussed political theory and philosophy of law questions with him including questions about the law of contracts. So I think that’s what we’re going to discuss today.
00:01:01
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Absolutely, and I’ll just observe that I’ve been a fan of the Journal of Libertarian Studies, of course, since its inception, and I noticed that I think your article was the very first article every published in the JLS.
00:01:13
WILLIAMSON EVERS: That’s right. It was the lead article in Volume 1 No. 1.
00:01:19
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yes, and you’ve had several others.
00:01:20
WILLIAMSON EVERS: Yes, and I was also the managing editor for awhile.
00:01:24
STEPHAN KINSELLA: And I think your article came out in 1977, and I’m a lawyer, and so I’ve written on this topic. And I’ve been interested in it since I’ve been studying Rothbard and libertarian theory. And this theory has been fascinating to me for a long time. My impression, and I’d like to get your impression, is that it’s been – it’s got a lot of potential. It could have more development, and it’s underappreciated, and I think it’s revolutionary to be honest in legal and libertarian theory.
00:01:54
Just in tracing the genesis of the idea, it appears to me that around 1974 – I think your article came out in ’77 – around ’74, Rothbard had some sketchy thoughts on this in one of his earlier articles. So my guess has been for awhile that you and Rothbard were discussing this, and you wrote it up into a longer piece, and then Rothbard drew on that in his Ethics if Liberty chapter, which relies heavily upon your 1977 article. Is that basically what happened? Do I have that right?
00:02:26
WILLIAMSON EVERS: I think that’s basically right.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 145.
From Episode 87 of PPL Radio: Join Darryl W. Perry on Peace, Love, Liberty Radio as he brings you news, views and opinions while promoting the ideas of peaceful interaction. The show is live from the LRN.FM studio in Keene, the Shire, Sundays 3-5pm (Eastern). Your calls are welcome at 603-435-1105 A response to Ann Coulter :: NJ school to students: return your laptops to be destroyed :: Florida Judge tells legislature to redraw districts :: Stephan Kinsella joins the show to discuss intellectual property, the history of copyright and patents, and his path to liberty
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 144.
I was a guest back in Mar. 28, 2012 on The Corbett Report, with host James Corbett (from Japan), discussing IP. From his description:
Corbett Report Radio 099 – Against Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella Posted by Corbett
Writer, thinker, lawyer and Austro-anarchist libertarian legal theorist Stephan Kinsella joins us to discuss his writing on intellectual property. We discuss the philosophical roots of property rights, how IP differs from those concepts, and how alternative models of making money from creative work are being pioneered in the age of the internet.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 143.
Sigh. Yes, IP, as usual.
I was a guest on Mar. 26, 2012 on Liberty Conspiracy, with host Gardner Goldsmith, discussing IP and related libertarian matters.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 142.
I was a guest on HMS-TV, Feb. 23, 2012, 6:30-7:30 pm CST (Houston's Public Affairs Public Access Live program), with host David Hutzelman. We discussed IP, SOPA, etc. We tried to find a local intelligent and civil pro-IP libertarian or Objectivist to debate me, but no luck (no surprise: There Are No Good Arguments for IP).
The video is available on YouTube here, and streamed below.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 141. This is from the Jan. 22, 2012 FreeTalkLive in which I was a guest, discussing intellectual property and SOPA. I was on for two hours on FreeTalkLive (1-22-12 show), with hosts Mark Edge and Stephanie. We discussed intellectual property and SOPA.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 140.
As noted here, I was a guest Jan. 20, 2012 on the Liberty Underground Radio Show on the 1787 Radio Network, discussing IP for about 25 minutes. The reason they invited me on was the hosts, in discussing SOPA and PIPA in the Dec. 31, 2011 show (hour 1, starting about 10 minutes in), had a dispute about IP. Although the main host questioning me was on the fence about IP, he was open-minded, fair, and civil, and I think he moved a bit in the anti-IP direction by the end. The show has a podcast (feed) and my segment was on the second hour, starting at about 25:25 (audio).
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 139.
Albert Lu interviewed me for his Power and Market podcast, posted July 29, 2014. Unlike most interviews, we talked about education, career choices, and related matters. This is an edited version of a longer interview. The longer one can be obtained by requesting access here.
Lu's description for the longer interview (which will be posted anon): Interview Highlights
In this interview, Stephan speaks directly to prospective law students, internet entrepreneurs, and technology capitalists about the practice of law and the dangerous world of intellectual property. We also took time to discuss his own academic career and his multiple transitions from engineering student, to lawyer, to proprietor and independent scholar.
This was a fun interview and reminds me of reason I began this project in the first place.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 138.
This is my appearance on the most recent episode (376) of Ben Stone's Bad Quaker podcast, Recorded July 16, 2014, posted July 27, 2014. From his description page: "Stephan Kinsella and Ben Stone have a chat about getting even, property rights, and how many libertarians can dance on the head of a pin.
Links:
Stephan Kinsella Against Intellectual Property Getting Even: Forgiveness and Its Limits"
We also talked about Tesla and patents.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 137.
I participated in an impromptu Google Hangout by Daniel Rothschild for his "Live Free, Die Old" podcast, including Matt Gilliland and James Cox, on the night after I did a Liberty.me seminar. Rambling and casual. We give poor Cox a bit too much grief for being confused and apparently relativist about rights. Good times.
** For an extra, see the Youtube at the bottom, a 30 minute talk between me and Cox, when I was in Banff Canada and lost in the woods and shooting the sht with him.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 136.
A discussion with Carlos Morales on the Truth Over Comfort podcast. We discuss children's rights, spanking, my article "How We Come To Own Ourselves," "intractable" issues like abortion, etc.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 135.
My discussion with Bernie Greene of the Life, Liberty and Proper Tea podcast, released July 18, 2014. From his shownotes: "Stephan Kinsella has made some profound contributions to the liberty philosophy. Here we touch on the nature of law in a free society, IP, democracy vs other forms of tyranny and, of course, pipe smoking.
https://www.stephankinsella.com/
And this is Stephan’s podcast feed. It includes some incredibly interesting stuff including an entire lecture series on Libertarian Legal Theory. I’ve listened to many of the podcasts several times. Truly excellent stuff.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/kinsella-on-liberty/id595093254"
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
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. Streaming 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.
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.
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 Robert Wenzel's post "Kinsela Constantly Insulted Me, Interrupted Me and Broke His Agreement" (Wenzel too stupid or sloppy to spell my last name right), and his post Is This What Kinsella Was Afraid Of?.
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, 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.
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:
Lew Rockwell, Education and the Election William Anderson, The Trouble with Vouchers
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.
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,
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;
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.
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."
Background: See my posts Open Science Summit Streaming Live; Kinsella on Panel at Open Science Summit.
Update: The transcript of my talk is here.
If the video embed below does not work, the video of the lecture may be found here.
The Future (the End?) of "Intellectual Property" from Open Science Summit on FORA.tv
The Future (the End?) of "Intellectual Property" from Open Science Summit on FORA.tv
As I noted in previous posts (Open Science versus Intellectual Property and Kinsella on Panel at Open Science Summit), this is a fascinating and promising movement/group that is devoting a great deal of attention to how IP affects science (for more on the OSS, see The Open Science Shift, Xconomy; Open science: a future shaped by shared experience, The Guardian; footage from last year's summit is available on the OSS Youtube channel).
In fact a good deal of the Opening Session of the 2010 Open Science Summit was devoted to IP horror stories and ways in which it interferes with science and the spread of knowledge (go to about 8:20 for the beginning of this discussion).
For a related talk, “Science is a Private Good – Or: Why Government Science is Wasteful” (video; audio; and below) delivered at the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society in Bodrum, Turkey, by Terence Kealey, a biochemist at the University of Buckingham and author of Sex, Science and Profits and The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. (See my post Bodrum Days and Nights: The Fifth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society: A Partial Report.)
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: Notes of a Speech Made to the 2013 Meeting in Bodrum of the Property and Freedom Society, 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.)
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 t...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 085
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,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 084.
This is from Episode 415 of the Bad Quaker podcast, with Ben Stone. We talked about a variety of matters, including the legitimacy of the state, intellectual property, and related matters.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 083.
This was my appearance on Daniel Rothschild's youtube channel on Sept. 27, 2013; we discussed a variety of topics, including "Intellectual Property, Government, National Defense, and Other Scams".
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 082.
This is from the Sunday, Aug. 21, 2011 FreeTalkLive in which I was a guest, discussing intellectual property with Sunday hosts Mark Edge and Stephanie. We talked for about an hour and a half, from 7pm-830pm EDT and had a good, wide-ranging discussion. A few callers called in near the end. This was the FTL debut on XM satellite radio’s “Extreme Talk”, XM 165. This episode is also available on the show's podcast feed here.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 081.
I appeared in August 2011 on Adam vs. The Man, talking about drug patents and related issues. Our segment runs from about 22:38 to 28:35.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 080.
Ths is from a previous appearance on the Adam vs. the Man show at the RT Network, Episode #28 (May 19, 2011), discussing IP and related matters. As the show's notes describe the episode: Episode #28: Faith & healthcare, Intellectual property rights
Tonight on ADAM VS THE MAN with Adam Kokesh: Adam has some good news for you tonight: you are not a pirate. In fact, because it is morally wrong to use the force of government to impede the free flow of ideas, you have the RIGHT to copy music, movies, text, software, inventions, and IDEAS! Speaking of ideas worth copying, Adam has best-selling author and President of Sojourners Jim Wallis in studio and Stephan Kinsella, intellectual property rights attorney, joins Adam from Houston Texas to tell you how to beat back the twisted logic of intellectual property. But that won’t stop the government from imposing a twisted morality of stifling innovation on you to make you feel bad for copying things that big corporations don’t want you to copy. Well tough! Because the internet is here to the rescue! - See more here
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 079.
This is from March 3, 2011: "IP Debate: John Templeton Foundation's Big Questions Debate series on Intellectual Property and Wealth Creation," The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Student Chapter of The Federalist Society (Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University, Columbus OH).
This debate was part of the "John Templeton Foundation’s Big Questions Debate series on Intellectual Property and Wealth Creation”; I debated patent attorney and adjunct IP law professor Steve Grant, who represented the pro-IP side.
A video was taken with a videocamera, but it was not direct mic'd so the quality is only so-so. The podcast version here is from my iPhone recording, which I often make during speeches as a backup, in case of low quality of the official version. My iPhone version is better quality, for my own remarks, than the audio from the camera (the audio file from the camera's recording is here). Professor Grant did his best, but didn't have a solid argument for IP other than the standard "I think we should reform IP but not get rid of it."
My opening speech is about 15 minutes and has decent audio quality, and is a summary of a hard-hitting version of the basic libertarian case against IP law (here is the powerpoint presentation I used; embedded version below). Grant's speech is audible but I was not very close to him; but his conventional and unsystematic, more empiricist and positivist than libertarian and principled remarks will be of only mild interest to libertarians. For my 10 or so minute rebuttal to him, I left my iPhone at the table but it's still audible; for the Q&A period, it was in front of me so it's decent again for that part.
My host was Aman Sharma, a very staunch libertarian law student and head of the student chapter of the Federalist Society. When I was involved with the Federalist Society (lawyers chapters) in Philadelphia and Houston they were populated with mainly Newt Gingrich loving neocons; good to see some Austro-libertarians infiltrating their ranks. Sharma told me "I had a lot of fellow students approach me after the event with questions showing a new-found interest in the Mises/Austrian worldview." That is cool and gratifying.
While in Ohio, I met my friend Jacob Huebert and other local libertarians/Federalist Society people—including Katelyn Horn and Maurice Thompson, of the 1851 Center, for dinner at Barrio Tapas. A fun trip, and great people.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 077. Lions of Liberty podcast. From Marc Clair's podcast description: Episode 1: Stephan Kinsella
September 13, 2013 In this inaugural edition of the Lions of Liberty Podcast, host Marc Clair interviews libertarian legal scholar Stephan Kinsella about the concept of intellectual property and the libertarian framework.
Lions of Liberty Podcast, Ep. 1: Stephan Kinsella
Finally! The long-anticipated Lions of Liberty Podcast has arrived! In this first episode, I spoke with Stephan Kinsella regarding the subject of intellectual property within the libertarian framework. Kinsella is the author of Against Intellectual Property, and is one of the best-known voices in the libertarian community against the concept of intellectual property.
I found the conversation with Kinsella very interesting and I feel it will be helpful not only for those trying to sort out a stance on intellectual property, but also for those new to libertarian ideas in sorting out some of the finer details of a libertarian framework. Before launching into tirades about “private property” and “contracts”, it’s important to have a firm grasp on the definitions of these terms.
I first came to the IP debate through the “debate” between Kinsella and Robert Wenzel on the issue, which served more as car-crash entertainment than an intellectual study. But it did peak my interest in an area I had honestly not given much thought to before. After reading his book and speaking further with him on the issue, I find it difficult to present a case in favor of intellectual property, at least as we know the concept today.
The biggest problem I see with intellectual property is that it attempts to bind third parties, not privy to any sort of contract, and prohibit them from using their own property in a way they see fit. I tend to agree with Kinsella’s view that intellectual property is nothing more than the State’s granting of a monopoly on an idea or a pattern of ideas.
The biggest difference between Kinsella and myself is that I may see a private society, sans the State, as coming up with more ways to protect their works through contracts and/or user agreements, but ultimately that can only go so far. Any differences we may have on just how far private arrangements to protect the work of artists may go are largely moot. When it comes to forming a libertarian position on a subject, we should not be asking “how will this work?” but “what is right?”
Your feedback is welcome and encouraged! This is my first attempt at conducting an interview or producing a podcast, so I promise I won’t be offended. Drop me an email at marc@lionsofliberty.com. I have some interesting guests planned for future shows, so stay tuned!
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 077.
In this podcast, recorded during my morning constitutional (stroll/walk), I discuss my take on how best to view the libertarian idea: its origins and basic concepts, from homesteading to body-ownership, inalienability, intellectual property, "coercion" vs. aggression, state vs. government, tactics and strategy and terminology and semantics vs. substance, etc., drawing mostly on the ideas of Locke, Rothbard, and Hoppe.
Relevant links:
How We Come To Own Ourselves, Mises Daily (Sep. 7, 2006) (Mises.org blog discussion; audio version) The Problem with “Coercion” “What Libertarianism Is,” Mises Daily (August 21, 2009) Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach, 12:1 Journal of Libertarian Studies 51 (Spring 1996). A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse “Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes,” Mises Economics Blog (June 23, 2011) (C4SIF) Hoppe, chs. 1-2 of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995), p. 132. (From an earlier note of mine about this: I have since changed my mind on the some of the issues regarding the Hayekian “knowledge problem” and Leoni’s work in this regard, as I have noted in subsequent articles, such as the Knowledge, Calculation, Conflict, and Law article, footnote 5. Oh, that I had heeded Jeff Herbener’s comments on an earlier manuscript, but I either got these comments too late, or did not fully appreciate them at the time. More information on the calculation debate.)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 076.
IP Debate with Chris (aka "Sid Non-Vicious") LeRoux, hosted by James Cox. LeRoux claims to be an anarcho-capitalist and former Randian but not a libertarian (he doesn't like labels, you see). He was recently arguing kinda for IP-but-not-really on Shanklin's podcast (see below), and contacted me about these issues. As you can see from the "debate" it's not clear what his position is or why he even wanted to debate me, or what he really disagrees with me on, but, .... here it is. Cox did a good guy trying to moderate, but it ended up being a mess, as it always is with people that are not clear on basic libertarian concepts and not totally opposed to IP.
Transcript below.
Relevant links:
How We Come To Own Ourselves, Mises Daily (Sep. 7, 2006) (Mises.org blog discussion; audio version) 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)] “Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes,” Mises Economics Blog (June 23, 2011) (C4SIF) Hoppe, chs. 1-2 of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach The Libertarian Approach to Negligence, Tort, and Strict Liability: Wergeld and Partial Wergeld The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression The Libertarian View on Fine Print, Shrinkwrap, Clickwrap
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/14POluaBwqU
James Cox's original Youtube:
https://youtu.be/wgJOeWU1Bek
TRANSCRIPT IP Debate with Chris LeRoux Stephan Kinsella and Chris LeRoux Aug. 30, 2013
00:00:01
JAMES COX: Ladies and gentlemen, tonight we’re having an IP debate, and in the right-hand corner is Stephan Kinsella for or against IP. And in the right-hand corner, there is Chris LeRoux, who is for or against IP. We will find out in this debate, and if you want more content or more debates like this, please like and subscribe to my YouTube channel. Previously, we’ve agreed. We didn’t flip a coin. Stephan Kinsella asked Chris LeRoux here if he wanted to go first.
00:00:36
Chris has agreed to go first. The rules are quite simple. The beginning of this discussing IP, Chris gets to talk for three minutes, and then Stephan Kinsella gets to talk for three minutes. And then Stephan Kinsella gets to ask Chris LeRoux a question of which he has two minutes to answer and vice versa. We plan for a 20-minute talk on this, and then after that, any time that’s needed will be decided. And if everybody decides then we’ll go on for longer. So okay, Chris, three minutes starting now.
00:01:12
CHRIS LEROUX: Well, I believe – Stephen – Stephan and I have had some preliminary discussions. And I believe that he has essentially admitted that my position is correct, and he essentially admitted that contract rights are absolute in an anarcho-capitalist system. And they’re not subject to his interpretation of what’s scarce or rivalrous, his opinion of these things.
00:01:39
Now, these things may be absolute. They may be worthwhile concepts, but all he has is his opinion of them. And he admitted that interfering in a contract in these things that are what he calls IP – I don’t call them that – would be violence, as I said. And the principle is nonviolence. I apply the principle of nonviolence to all property rights, and that’s it. I don’t think he can weasel his way out of that position, and I’ll hand over my time.
00:02:13
JAMES COX: Okay. Hold on a second. Stephan, go.
00:02:18
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, I’m actually not sure what you just said, Chris. You maybe should introduce your position so we can know what it is instead of saying I’ve agreed to it already. People here haven’t read our email exchange.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 075.
This is my appearance on Michael Shanklin’s Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast with Michael Shanklin (Aug. 26, 2013). We discussed a variety of issues, as noted in the subject line. Some background material for these topics can be found at:
Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan, Anti-state.com (Sept. 19, 2002) (reply to Bob Murphy and Gene Callahan, Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethic: A Critique; debate discussed in this forum) How We Come to Own Ourselves Hoppe, “Of Private, Common, and Public Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization” What Libertarianism Is The Blockean Proviso The relation between the non-aggression principle and property rights: a response to Division by Zer0 Thoughts on the Latecomer and Homesteading Ideas; or, why the very idea of “ownership” implies that only libertarian principles are justifiable California Gay Marriage Law Overturned: What Should Libertarians Think? Advice for Prospective Libertarian Law Students
Our previous discussions: KOL 043 | Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast, with Michael Shanklin: Bitcoin, Legal Reform, Morality of Voting, Rothbard on Copyright and 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 074.
This is my interview from The Libertarian, by Keir Martland. It was released as The Libertarian: Podcast #1. We discussed libertarian theory, Hans-Hermann Hoppe's libertarian views, argumentation ethics, immigration, and related matters. For further background on these topics see:
Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders What Libertarianism Is
I also did a previous written interview with Martland for that site: Interview by The Libertarian.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 073.
I was a guest today on Freedom Feens radio. We talked about a variety of issues—property rights, education, and the Libertarian Macho Flash, among other topics.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 072.
I was interviews for Vrijheid Radio (Netherlands) last week, by host Henri Serton. We talked about libertarian property theory, Locke, intellectual property, and related issues. I think it was a very good interview, maybe one of the best I've participated in, due in no small part to Serton's intelligent prodding and questions.
SoundCloud link;
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 071.
This is my appearance at a New York University School of Law/Journal of Law and Liberty Symposium: “Plain Meaning in Context: Can Law Survive its Own Language?” (February 18, 2011); my panel was “Intellectual Property Law and Policy." Our panel was preceded by a keynote speech on a somewhat unrelated topic by Professor Richard Epstein, and featured me and two law professors specializing in IP law.
After Epstein's keynote speech, my talk was first. The podcast here omits Epstein's speech and begins with my own talk, and continues with the other two panelists' talks and the Q&A session in which I answered a few questions. The full video, which includes Epstein's introductory talk, is online here and included below.
Note: near the end of Epstein's speech (at 48:11, in the embedded video version) I asked him a question about federalism and the doctrine of selective incorporation; he gave a fair answer, but one I disagree with on the grounds the privileges and immunities clause did not unambiguously mean to incorporate a large set of "fundamental rights" into the Fourteenth Amendment, as Raoul Berger has argued. On the IP panel, a more general Q&A and interpanelist interchange session starts around 1:53:14 in the video (57:35 in this podcast excerpt), with me drawing a lot of the questions from fellow panelists and the audience. I was the only one who used a powerpoint; it cannot be seen from the posted video, so the file is here: The problem with IP, and also embedded also below.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 070.
I was a guest recently on Red Ice Radio (Sweden), with host Henrik Palmgren, which was broadcast on the July 3, 2013 show. This is hour 1; hour 2 is available to paying subscribers of Red Ice Radio.
From the site's description of the episode:
Stephan Kinsella - Hour 1 - Against Intellectual Property July 3, 2013 Stephan Kinsella is Founder and Executive Editor of Libertarian Papers, Founder and Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF), and a member of the Editorial Board of Reason Papers. A registered patent attorney and former adjunct professor at South Texas College of Law, Stephan has published numerous articles and books on IP law, international law, and the application of libertarian principles to legal topics. In the first hour, we'll discuss individual property and intellectual property. Stephan explains the purpose of property rules and rights. He'll discuss John Locke's principle of first appropriation or the homestead principle. Locke argued in support of individual property rights as "natural rights." We tie this into the Libertarian debate verses other political parties. Then, Kinsella argues the negative impact of intellectual property. He also explains how intellectual property laws control freedom of speech and violate various constitutional amendments. In the member's hour, Stephan continues to give examples to state his case against intellectual property. We hear how the state profits from these copyright, trademark and patent laws. And we'll learn about the inordinate power of the copyright industry. He talks about how we'd prosper if the current gatekeeper, guarding intellectual property, eroded as it does more damage than good. Later, we'll discuss the true free market. Today laws are in place protecting companies from competition. The hour ends on where things are heading and the impact of technological change.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 069.
I was a guest on the Feb. 15, 2011 episode of Thinking Liberty, “an interactive libertarian anarchist talk program.” We talked for quite a while about IP; the hosts asked very intelligent questions. This podcast episode begins with my segment, which originally started about 25:00 into the original episode.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 068. From the shownotes:
"Why Man Made Law Is Slavery! In this video I talk to Stephan Kinsella of https://www.stephankinsella.com We talk about man made law and how it is better to just have contracts with one another."
Youtube:
Original:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 067.
I recorded this one during my morning walk. Forgive the audio imperfections, but I had the audio tweaked so it's not bad. I discuss the argument for the unconstitutionality of IP, namely patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret, which I discussed in a previous post, Copyright is Unconstitutional. For further details, see that post.
Update: One further argument for the unconstitutionality of copyright that I forgot to mention in the podcast is one I mentioned in the referenced post. Namely, the Patent Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to award patents “to promote the Progress of Science ... by securing for limited Times to Authors ... the exclusive Right to their respective Writings....” The copyright clause only authorizes Congress to protect an author’s “writings.” To the extent copyright law covers things other than writings–like paintings, movies, music, sculptures, photographs, software code (or at least look-and-feel aspects), boat hull designs–it is also clearly unconstitutional.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 066.
LiveFreeFM (IP), with Nathan Fraser (May 26, 2013): Stephan Kinsella joins us this week to discuss his work as a patent lawyer and libertarian, and how it has brought him to the forefront of the anti-IP movement. We discuss the legalities involving intellectual property, the morality of the concept, and whether or not it serves the utilitarian purposes that are used to justify it. Then, towards the end of the show, we discuss emerging technologies that are challenging the validity of intellectual property.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 065.
I was a guest on The Medical Freedom Report Podcast, with host Michael Ostrolenk, a couple years ago, discussing Patents on Medical Technology and Pharmaceuticals (Feb. 24, 2011).
Patents & Copyrights: intellectual property rights or monopoly control of ideas? Why are medical devices protected by patent law while medical procedures are exempt? And what about the government’s use of compulsory licenses to force pharmaceutical companies to produce certain drugs like CIPRO. These are two medical-related examples in a long list of arcane exceptions and arbitrary details written in to intellectual property (IP) law. It is commonly believed that IP rights, such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks are necessary to foster innovation and protect the interests of the people and companies that create new products and ideas. Patent attorney Stephan Kinsella of the Mises Institute, holds an opposite view, and in this podcast with Michael Ostrolenk, discusses the growing movement that views IP law as not only anti-competitive and a barrier to innovation, but also as incompatible with true property rights. Michael and Stephan also talk about the evolution of IP from laws like the 1709 Statute of Queen Ann, an attempt by the monarchy to control the output of book printers, the influence of which carried into the copyright and patent provisions in the U.S. Constitution.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 064.
This is my appearance on the Katherine Albrecht radio show, discussing net neutrality (Dec. 22, 2010). For more information, see my post Against Net Neutrality. Here is the link to the show page for this episode.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 063.
I was a guest on the “Live and Let Live” radio show with Gary Johnson discussing IP (Nov. 14, 2010).
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 062.
This is my speech “Intellectual Freedom and Learning versus Patent and Copyright,” at the 2010 Students For Liberty Texas Regional Conference, University of Texas, Austin. I discussed this previously in my post Kinsella Speech at Students for Liberty – Texas Conference (Austin), on “Intellectual Freedom vs Patent and Copyright”. An edited transcript appears in my article “Intellectual Freedom and Learning Versus Patent and Copyright,” Economic Notes No. 113 (Libertarian Alliance, Jan. 18, 2011); also published as “Intellectual Freedom and Learning Versus Patent and Copyright,” The Libertarian Standard (Jan. 19, 2011). The video is below.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 061.
This is my speech “How Intellectual Property Hampers Capitalism,” from the Mises Institute Supporters’ Summit: “The Economic Recovery: Washington’s Big Lie” (Oct. 9 2010, Auburn Alabama). A transcript is here; see also the article based on this talk: “How Intellectual Property Hampers the Free Market,” The Freeman (June 2011), republished as “How to Slow Economic Progress,” Mises Daily (June 1, 2011). The Youtube video is embedded below.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 060.
This is a Discussion of intellectual property and libertarianism on Ernest Hancock's Declare Your Independence radio show (Sep. 14, 2010). I was on the show for about two hours (hours 2 and 3 of his show) discussing intellectual property. It was a pretty wide-ranging, radical discussion, but I think I made progress with Ernie (update: I since met Ernie in person at Libertopia 2012 and we had a nice visit together). The MP3 files are on the show’s page for that day; local files: hour 1; hour 2; hour 3.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 059.
From: Libertarian Parenting--A Freedomain Radio Conversation with Stephan Kinsella, FreeDomain Radio #1689 (Thursday, 1 Jul 2010): "Two libertarian parents discuss how to best raise confident and freethinking children, including discipline without aggression, Montessori education, resolving conflicts and teaching skepticism and rationality." See also: my TLS post Stefan Molyneux’s “Libertarian Parenting” Series; and my post Montessori and "Unschooling".
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 058.
I appeared on the Gene Basler Show (May 30, 2010), discussing a variety of anarcho-libertarian matters–environmentalism, nuclear power, state propaganda in government schools, class action lawsuits, reparations, how to achieve an anarcho-libertarian society, animal rights, positive rights and obligations, forced heirship, and so on (an edited transcript to appear as a chapter in Gene Basler, Environmental Non-Policy: Interviews on Environment, War and Liberty, forthcoming August 2011).
https://youtu.be/e6NkAno4HTA Transcript Gene Basler Show: Anarcho-Capitalist Issues Stephan Kinsella and Gene Basler Gene Basler Show, May 30, 2010 00:00:05
Gene: Welcome folks. This is Gene Basler, your host. This is episode eight of the Gene Basler Show, formerly called Anarcho Environmentalism. Today is Sunday, May 30, 2010, and I’m pleased to welcome as my guest Stephan Kinsella. Are you there, Stephan?
00:00:22
Stephan Kinsella: I’m here. Glad to be here, Gene.
00:00:24
Gene: Thanks for coming on. Let me read Stephan’s profile on Wikipedia. Kinsella is General Counsel of Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., of Sugar Land, Texas. A practicing intellectual property attorney and former adjunct professor of law at South Texas College of Law where he taught computer law, Kinsella is actively involved with libertarian legal and political theory, and is adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, as well as the former Book Review Editor for the Institute’s Journal of Libertarian Studies.
00:00:57
He is also a contributor to the news and opinion blog at LewRockwell.com and is the creator of Libertarian Papers, a peer-reviewed online journal published under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. He writes that, after college, he “began to put more emphasis on Austrian economics and paleo-libertarian insights of Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Rockwell”.
00:01:23
Kinsella’s legal publications include books and articles about patent law, contract law, e-commerce law, international law and other topics. Kinsella has also published and lectured on a variety of libertarian topics, often combining libertarian and legal analysis. Kinsella’s views on contract theory, causation and the law, intellectual property, and rights theory (in particular his estoppel theory) are his main contributions to libertarian theory.
00:01:53
In contract theory, he extends Murray Rothbard’s and Williamson Evers’ title-transfer theory of contract, linking it with inalienability theory while also attempting to clarify that theory. Title-transfer theory of contract: Kinsella sets forth a theory of causation that attempts to explain why remote actors can be liable under libertarian theory. He gives non-utilitarian arguments for intellectual property being incompatible with libertarian property rights principles. He advances the discourse ethics argument for the justification of individual rights, using an extension of the concept of estoppel. Welcome to the show, Stephan.
00:02:33
Stephan Kinsella: Thanks very much, Gene.
00:02:35
Gene: Okay. Here at Anarcho-Environmentalism, we—namely I—argue that there are indeed real environmental concerns out there. We argue that air pollution, water pollution, etc., are indeed real environmental concerns, that global climate change ain’t one of ‘em, and that market and voluntary solutions are preferable to government or policy-based solutions.
00:03:18
I guess my first question for you is, as an expert in patent law, do you think the existence of patent law is really nothing more than just one more way government runs block for favored and well-connected market participants by protecting environmentally irresponsible means and methods of production? And if so, does this not logically follow that patent law harms the environment?
00:03:46
Stephan Kinsella: Well, that’s an interesting connection.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 057.
I was on The Peter Mac Show on May 12, 2010, with my fellow Libertarian Standard co-blogger Rob Wicks. We discussed a variety of matters, including whether libertarians should use the word “capitalism,” also anarchy, IP and other topics.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 056.
I was a guest on the May 9, 2010 episode of BlogTalkRadio’s show Anarchy Time, hosted by James Cox. Other guests included C4SS Development Specialist Mariana Evica, Wilt Alston, and Stefan Molyneux (also podcast at Freedomain Radio #1659: “The Immigration Roundtable – BlogTalkRadio with Stephan Kinsella, Wilt Alston and Stefan Molyneux: A roundtable discussion on the challenge of immigration.”)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 055.
This is from The Voluntary Life, Author Interview: Stephan Kinsella on Against Intellectual Property (March 20, 2010; also podcast as Episode 1616 of Freedomain Radio, as Stefan Molyneux joined in too). See also their interesting episode Against Intellectual Property: A Follow Up Discussion.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 054.
This is my speech from the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society in Bodrum, Turkey (June 6, 2010). My topic was “Ideas are Free: The Case Against Intellectual Property,” though a better title might be something like “Ideas Are Not Property: The Libertarian IP Mistake and the Structure of Human Action.”
The video is below; a transcript was published as a Mises Daily article: “Ideas are Free: The Case Against Intellectual Property: or, How Libertarians Went Wrong” (N.B.: there are a couple of typos in the transcript).
I also participated in a Q&A Discussion Panel featuring “Hoppe, van Dun, DiLorenzo, Kinsella, Daniels, Kealey”- video below, but not included in the audio podcast; I discuss the conference in my post Bodrum Days and Nights: The Fifth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society: A Partial Report.
https://youtu.be/zLYXxf1bosA
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 053.
Author’s Forum: Property, Freedom and Society, Austrian Scholars Conference (March 11, 2010).
This is from a short speech at the Austrian Scholars Conference 2010 on the Author's Forum about Property, Freedom and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Mar. 11, 2010).
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 052.
I was a guest recently on the Renegade Variety Hour , discussing a variety of libertarian issues with hosts Carlos Morales and Taryn Harris (May 8, 2013), including argumentation ethics and estoppel (see Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide), atheism, and related matters.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 051.
This is a short, informal discussion with a good friend of mine, patent attorney Mark Gilbreth (email). A fairly a-libertarian and a-political type, we talked about some of the practical and political aspects of patent law practice. Mark is an experienced chemical engineer-specialized patent attorney (I am electrical). We met in 1998 when we both were adjunct professors at South Texas College of Law. We recorded this while walking to lunch from my house. Yes, there are traffic noises and leaf-blowers--the sounds of civilization.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 050.
This is lecture 6 (of 6) of my 2011 Mises Academy course “Libertarian Controversies.” This talk continued lecture 5, which covered "Controversies and Conundrums," such as monarchy vs. democracy, discrimination and diversity, immigration, incitement and causation (cont.), property rights, legal and logical positivism, fraud, contracts and inalienability, self-ownership, creation and the source of rights, and common libertarian misconceptions and mistakes such as scarcity vs. nonrivalry, states' rights, loser-pays system, an educational voucher system, push the button hypos, rights as a subset of morals, spam as aggression, the danger of metaphors and equivocation, working for the state, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, and fine print in contracts, federalism, left vs. rights, activism, use of courts, forgiving crimes, abandoned property, fractional reserve banking, inalienability/voluntary slavery, mutualism, relevant technological unit, the Lockean proviso, the Blockean proviso, Rothbard on copyright, Constitutional sentimentalism, Georgism, strategy, thick vs. thin, and other issues. Slides for this lecture are appended below (also used for lecture 5).
For background information, links to recommended reading, and audio and slides for all six lectures, see KOL 045 | “Libertarian Controversies Lecture 1" (Mises Academy, 2011).
Update: The videos of all six lectures are now available here; the video for this particular lecture is embedded below.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 049.
This is lecture 5 (of 6) of my 2011 Mises Academy course “Libertarian Controversies.” This talk covered "Controversies and Conundrums," such as monarchy vs. democracy, discrimination and diversity, immigration, incitement and causation (cont.), property rights, legal and logical positivism, fraud, contracts and inalienability, self-ownership, creation and the source of rights, and common libertarian misconceptions and mistakes such as scarcity vs. nonrivalry, states' rights, loser-pays system, an educational voucher system, push the button hypos, rights as a subset of morals, spam as aggression, the danger of metaphors and equivocation, working for the state, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, and fine print in contracts, federalism, left vs. rights, activism, use of courts, forgiving crimes, abandoned property, fractional reserve banking, inalienability/voluntary slavery, mutualism, relevant technological unit, the Lockean proviso, the Blockean proviso, Rothbard on copyright, Constitutional sentimentalism, Georgism, strategy, thick vs. thin, and other issues. Slides for this lecture are appended below (also used for lecture 6).
For background information, links to recommended reading, and audio and slides for all six lectures, see KOL 045 | “Libertarian Controversies Lecture 1" (Mises Academy, 2011). The remaining lectures will be released here in the podcast feed in upcoming days.
Update: The videos of all six lectures are now available here; the video for this particular lecture is embedded below.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 048.
This is lecture 4 (of 6) of my 2011 Mises Academy course “Libertarian Controversies.” This talk covered "Misconceptions and Controversies," such as positive vs. negative obligations, contracts vs. promises, incitement and causation, and other issues. Slides for this lecture are appended below.
For background information, links to recommended reading, and audio and slides for all six lectures, see KOL 045 | “Libertarian Controversies Lecture 1" (Mises Academy, 2011). The remaining lectures will be released here in the podcast feed in upcoming days.
Update: The videos of all six lectures are now available here; the video for this particular lecture is embedded below.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 047.
This is lecture 3 (of 6) of my 2011 Mises Academy course “Libertarian Controversies.” This talk covered "Even More Misconceptions," such as state vs. government, "limited" government, Hoppe on monarchy vs. democracy, federalism, restitution and punishment, positive obligations, and other issues. Slides for this lecture are appended below.
For background information, links to recommended reading, and audio and slides for all six lectures, see KOL 045 | “Libertarian Controversies Lecture 1" (Mises Academy, 2011). The remaining lectures will be released here in the podcast feed in upcoming days.
Update: The videos of all six lectures are now available here; the video for this particular lecture is embedded below.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 046.
This is lecture 2 (of 6) of my 2011 Mises Academy course “Libertarian Controversies.” This talk covered more common libertarian misconceptions such as PDA jurisdiction, Big-L vs. small-l libertarianism and other misused terms, non-aggression "axiom" or principle, and other issues. Slides for this lecture are appended below.
For background information, links to recommended reading, and audio and slides for all six lectures, see KOL 045 | “Libertarian Controversies Lecture 1" (Mises Academy, 2011). The remaining lectures will be released here in the podcast feed in upcoming days.
Update: The videos of all six lectures are now available here; the video for this particular lecture is embedded below.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 045.
This is lecture 1 (of 6) of my 2011 Mises Academy course “Libertarian Controversies.” This lecture contained an overview of basic austro-libertarian concepts and started discussing various libertarian "misconceptions," regarding the left-right spectrum, coercion and force vs. aggression, the jurisdiction of private defense agencies, and related issues. I’ll release the remaining lectures here in the podcast feed in upcoming days.
This course followed on my speech "Correcting some Common Libertarian Misconceptions," from the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society (May 27-29, 2011; see KOL 044 | “Correcting some Common Libertarian Misconceptions” (PFS 2011)). That talk engendered a good deal of discussion and interest, but in the time allotted for a single speech I was able to cover only a small number of the topics I had assembled over the years. In the 6 week Mises Academy course, “Libertarian Controversies” (Sept. 19-Oct. 23, 2011), I covered these and related topics in greater depth. The course was planned for 5 weeks initially, but I added a sixth "bonus" lecture at student request. The course is discussed in my Mises Daily article “Libertarian Controversies” (Aug. 25, 2011); here are the audio and slides for all six lectures. The “suggested readings” for this lecture are appended below.
Update: see also
KOL185: Clarifying Libertarian Theory (Liberty.me, July 2014) KOL 044 | “Correcting some Common Libertarian Misconceptions” (PFS 2011)
SUGGESTED READING MATERIAL
General background readings are below; other particular links are provided in the slides for each lecture:
Recommended Background Readings
Kinsella, “What Libertarianism Is" Kinsella, "Libertarian Controversies" Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism [TSC], chapters 1-2, 7
Optional Background Readings
Rothbard, For A New Liberty [FaNL] and Ethics of Liberty [EoL] (both strongly recommended) Huebert, Libertarianism Today (Scribd free version; Vance’s review; Kinsella review Rockwell & Rothbard, eds., The Free Market Reader Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable Frederic Bastiat, The Law Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom Linda & Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty Lysander Spooner, No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Kinsella
What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist How We Come To Own Ourselves Causation and Aggression Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory Against Intellectual Property The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide The Trouble with Libertarian Activism Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society Summary version: Legislation and Law in a Free Society
Recommended Background Readings: Other
David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom Gary Chartier, The Conscience of an Anarchist Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the Law Bastiat, The Law; Economic Sophisms and Economic Harmonies Charles Murray, What it Means to be a Libertarian David Boaz, Libertarianism: A Primer; The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao Tzu to Milton FriedmanRichard Epstein, Simple Rules for a Complex World Jeffery Miron, Libertarianism, from A to Z
Optional Background Readings: Bibliographies
Hoppe, Anarcho-Capitalism: An annotated bibliography Kinsella, The Greatest Libertarian Books David Gordon on Liberty Lew Rockwell on Reading for Liberty Others at LRC Bibliographies
Update: The videos of all six lectures are now available here; the video for this particular lecture is embedded below.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 044.
This is my speech "Correcting Some Common Libertarian Misconceptions," delivered on May 28, 2011, at the Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. The video is here, and streamed below; here is the powerpoint presentation. Re-presented as PFP076.
Transcript available here.
Related:
KOL 045 | “Libertarian Controversies Lecture 1” (Mises Academy, 2011) KOL023 | “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society: Lecture 6: Applications Continued; Common Libertarian Mistakes (Fraud Etc.)” (Mises Academy, 2011) KOL206 | Tom Woods Show: Five Mistakes Libertarians Make KOL185: Clarifying Libertarian Theory (Liberty.me, July 2014) KOL118 | Tom Woods Show: Against Fuzzy Thinking
[This speech was discussed previously on the Mises blog with extensive comments, and also on my blog]
Update: Thanks to Joseph Fetz with help cleaning up the original audio file.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 043.
This is my appearance on Michael Shanklin’s Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast with Michael Shanklin (April 25, 2013). We discussed a variety of issues, including: Bitcoin, the police state, legal reform (jury nullification, loser-pays rules), the morality of voting, Rothbard on copyright (for more: see Against Intellectual Property, "Contract vs. Reserved Rights" section, and Rothbard’s “High Tech ‘Crime’: A Call for Papers” (1983)), the history of patent and copyright (for more: see Karl Fogel's article The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World), and other issues.
Our previous discussion: 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 042.
This is a reading of my paper "Estoppel: A New Justification for Individual Rights," which was published in Reason Papers No. 17 (Fall 1992). It was narrated by Carlos Morales on the Renegade Variety Hour podcast (April 18, 2013).
This was the first of my libertarian theory works and a precursor to other articles such as "Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach," Journal of Libertarian Studies 12:1 (Spring 1996), "New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory," Journal of Libertarian Studies 12:2 (Fall 1996), and “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide,” Mises Daily (May 27, 2011) (the latter of which includes “Discourse Ethics and Liberty: A Skeletal Ebook”).
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 041.
This is from Episode 367 of the Bad Quaker podcast, with Ben Stone.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 040.
[Update: KOL186: Great IP Debate with Baker-Kinsella]
This is a discussion about IP with a fellow Austro-anarchist libertarian, Alexander Baker, who initially accepted the anti-IP argument I and others have made, but who has since moved to a type of pro-IP position. We had a few email discussions in recent months about this, but I was unable to persuade him that his approach was misguided. We decided to have a (friendly) discussion about it.
Baker calls his theory "intellectual space" and has a new blog devoted to this "libertarian theory of intangible property"; he sketches his position in his post Intro to Intellectual Space. We had a very interesting, civil discussion, which is rare for discussions with IP advocates (see, e.g., KOL 038 | Debate with Robert Wenzel on Intellectual Property). Baker was honest and forthright, willing to admit what he is not yet sure about; he admitted his own bias for IP given that his career (as a musical composer) depends in part on IP protection. He admitted the burden of proof is on IP advocates, and I believe he would not disagree with me that many advocates over the years have offered weak arguments.
I don't agree with Baker, in the end. His argument seems to me to be based on analogies: an idea or recipe can play a role in production "similar" to how scarce means can, and thus can be exploited, owned, etc. However, he came across to me as sincere and searching for truth, which I can appreciate. Listen and judge for yourself.
Update: Here is a previous discussion on this topic between Baker and Stefan Molyneux:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 039.
I was a guest recently on the Renegade Variety Hour (discussing intellectual property and other issues), with hosts Carlos Morales and Taryn Harris (recorded April 5, 2013, podcast April 10, 2013). I met them at the recent Liberty in the Pines conference and was happy to talk with them.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 038.
[Update: see my post Wenzel the Werewolf]
Blogger Robert Wenzel and I had a "debate" earlier today about IP, to be jointly put up on my podcast and his Economic Policy Journal "podcast" (it's on his site at Kinsella Crushed!! and Initial Report on Debate, and mentioned ahead of time several times as linked below). Bob is an Austrian libertarian (I think) blogger but has been criticizing me and Jeff Tucker's anti-IP views for a few years now (see links below), so we decided to discuss it. (( Note: I failed to record the audio at my end until 1:07:10, but my audio quality was better. So I spliced in the better second half from my recording. So starting at 1:07:10 you can hear better audio quality at my end, and no worse at Wenzel's. ))
The transcript is available here.
Youtube:
Backup copy:
The discussion went on for over 2 hours. It went about as I expected: he tried to dwell on side points, he refused to—was unable to—even attempt to define IP much less provide a coherent justification for it. He repeatedly engaged in question-begging: calling using information you learn from others "stealing," which presupposes that there is some owned thing that is stolen. He started out with several bizarre, off-point attacks: for example challenging my claim in my 2001 piece Against Intellectual Property that Rothbard was one of the original libertarian opponents of IP. The entire criticism by Wenzel is bizarre because whether or not I am right in listing Rothbard as an opponent of patent and copyright has nothing to do with whether IP is justified. Further, later in the paper I have an extensive section dealing with Rothbard's attempt to come up with some kind of contractual scheme that emulated some aspects of IP, which he confusingly calls "copyright." Some libertarians, like Wenzel, apparently think Rothbard did support copyright (though Wenzel repeatedly equivocates on whether he is talking about state copyright or Rothbard's private "copyright" scheme), or patent, or something in between, and others say he didn't. For example David Gordon writing on LewRockwell.com, in Sam Konkin and Libertarian Theory, observes: ... anti-IP views were very much in the air thirty years ago: Wendy McElroy stands out especially in my mind as a forceful and effective critic of IP. Even earlier, Rothbard had in Man, Economy, and State (1962) favored the replacement of the state system of patents and copyrights with contractual arrangements, freely negotiated. (If one moves outside modern libertarianism, Benjamin Tucker rejected IP well over a century ago as Wendy McElroy has documented in an outstanding article. Rothbard did not take this "contractual copyright" idea very far and indeed I believe it contradicts other aspects of his thought such as his contract theory (ch. 19 of Ethics of Liberty), his opposition to reputation rights/defamation law (ch. 16), and his explicit opposition to patents (ch. 16, also Man, Economy, and State and Power and Market, Scholars Edition, pp. liv, 745-54, 1133-38, 1181-86).
But anyway, what does it matter? It's a bizarre appeal to authority. I am quite sure that Rothbard would have agreed with us anti-IP libertarians if he had had more time to sort it out; as I noted, it's implied in all the structure of his political theory. This is why Hoppe easily saw this by integrating Rothbardian and Misesian political economic ideas (Hoppe on Intellectual Property). But so what if he would not have? Then he would have been wrong. And so what if I had been wrong in listing Rothbard as an early libertarian opponent of IP (though he arguably was; although as the paper explained later on, his position was not fully fleshed out and/or had ambiguities). How does this prove IP is legitimate? It does not, but Wenzel has no good argument for IP which is why he for over two hours refuses my repeated requests that he provide one—after all,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 037. [Transcript.]
I spoke last weekend at one of the best events I've ever been part of: the "Liberty in the Pines" (facebook event) conference at Stephen F. Austin State University, in Nacogdoches, Texas. Sponsored by the Young Americans for Liberty chapter and the Charles Koch Foundation, this one-day event brought together liberty-lovers of all stripes from surrounding areas. My speech was "Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory." Stefan Molyneux and Jeff Tucker appeared and delivered speeches as well (with Jeff's inspiring keynote resulting in a resounding standing ovation). Walter Block conducted an "Ask a Libertarian" Q&A session (remotely), and relative newcomer Jessica Hughes delivered a surprisingly radical and resounding speech on "The Constitution of Faux Authority." [Update: See Liberty in the Pines Roundup.]
This podcast episode includes my speech and Q&A (about 54 minutes) plus the panel Q&A (about another 50 minutes). The panel Q&A touched on issues like peaceful parenting, spanking, and so on. Not to toot my own horn, but I know I have a lot of a/v material out there, so I do believe this speech of mine is one of the most important I've ever done.
Update: See Stephen Decker's report on the event.
For some background on some of the issues I discussed, see:
Hume on Intellectual Property and the Problematic “Labor” Metaphor Locke on IP; Mises, Rothbard, and Rand on Creation, Production, and "Rearranging" "Locke, Smith, Marx and the Labor Theory of Value," Mises Economics Blog (June 23, 2010) (archived comments) “What Libertarianism Is” “How We Come To Own Ourselves" "Montessori, Peace, and Libertarianism" John Bremer, “Education as Peace”
Update: The YouTube at the bottom had inferior audio to the podcast version that I recorded using the iPhone in my pocket. The YouTube immediately below incorporates the superior audio track (thanks to Manuel Lora).
Original YouTube, with inferior audio:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 036.
I was a last-minute guest last week for the Rothbardian Circle (substituting for Dan D'Amico), a Miami-based discussion group, for their event "Introduction to Free Markets/Libertarian Theory" (Mar. 20, 2013). We discussed a variety of issues, mostly in a Q&A format, including the essentials of libertarian property theory, Lockean homesteading, Rothbard's idea of the "relevant technological unit," the labor theory of property, intellectual property, and other issues.
The event was reported in the article Republicans and Libertarians team up for the Rothbardian Circle.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 035.
This is from my Antiwar Interview: Kinsella on Bill of Rights, Intellectual Property by host Scott Horton (Feb. 11, 2010). We discussed "the federal government’s appropriation of the Bill of Rights – through the 14th Amendment – to regulate state powers, the debate about whether current lawlessness can rightfully be blamed on deviation from the beneficent Constitution or if the problem lies in the deeply flawed document itself and why ideas can’t be property."
For more on the latter, see the C4SIF Resources page. For more on constitutional sentimentalism and related issues, see “Thumbs Down on the Fourth of July” (and posts linked therein) and On Constitutional Sentimentalism.
Antiwar Radio: Stephan Kinsella
Antiwar Radio: Stephan Kinsella
Posted by Scott in February 11th, 2010 No Comments Yet
Posted in: Uncategorized Tags: Antiwar Radio, Scott-Horton, Stephan Kinsella
Stephan Kinsella, fellow at the Mises Institute and author of the book Against Intellectual Property [.pdf], discusses the federal government’s appropriation of the Bill of Rights – through the 14th Amendment – to regulate state powers, the debate about whether current lawlessness can rightfully be blamed on deviation from the beneficent Constitution or if the problem lies in the deeply flawed document itself and why ideas can’t be property.
// < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ pp_flashembed( 'powerpress_player_4654', {src: 'http://www.scotthortonshow.com/wp-content/plugins/powerpress/FlowPlayerClassic.swf', width: 320, height: 24, wmode: 'transparent' }, {config: { autoPlay: false, autoBuffering: false, initialScale: 'scale', showFullScreenButton: false, showMenu: false, videoFile: 'http://scotthorton.org/radio/10_02_11_kinsella.mp3', loop: false, autoRewind: true } } ); // ]]>Podcast: Play in new window | Download (5.5MB)
(local copy)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 034.
I was a guest yesterday on Jake Shannon's libertarian "Mental Self Defense" radio show discussing intellectual property (what's new). Good host.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 033.
I was interviewed back on Jan. 20, 2010 by Mark Edge, as part of his “Edgington Post Interview Series,” for his Free Talk Live radio show, about my Mises Daily article, “Reducing the Cost of IP Law.” The interview is lasts about 35 minutes, and starts at 2:02:36 in the original Jan. 20, 2010 show, which I have trimmed here. Edge conducted an excellent interview–very informed and interesting. And, like many others, he’s come around to the anti-IP position. (See, on this, Have You Changed Your Mind About Intellectual Property?, Yet another Randian recants on IP, The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism, The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism.)
This podcast was discussed previously on the Mises blog.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 032.
From Kinsella on Bill Handel Show Discussing Blackmail, Tiger Woods, David Letterman (Dec. 14, 2009) (Mises): I was a guest on the Bill Handel Show in late 2009 discussing the libertarian perspective on blackmail, with reference to the Tiger Woods and other cases. (See my post Blackmail should be legal: the case of David Letterman.) We also touched on common law versus legislation (see my Legislation and Law in a Free Society), intellectual property, reputation rights and defamation law, prostitution, and extortion. Handel, though apparently not a libertarian, was a very smart and fair host. See the Bill Handel Show podcast.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 031.
This is my appearance on the Smash Walls Radio Podcast, Episode 9: Patent Shenanigans, with host Trevor Hultner. We discussed patent trolls, the SHIELD Act, and related matters.
For more on that issue, see Patent trolls as mafioso (and that’s a compliment) and The SHIELD Act doesn’t go far enough: protect victims of all patent aggressors, not just “trolls”.
Update: See Trevor Hultner: Patent “Trolls” are Bad. Patents are Worse.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 030.
This is an interview of Derek Khanna, a conservative/libertarian pro-innovation and pro-free market activist. Khanna was the Congressional staffer who authored a copyright reform brief for the Republican Study Committee (the conservative caucus of House Republicans). The brief was entitled Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it, and attacked current copyright law and proposed sweeping, significant changes—reducing statutory damages, expanding fair use, punishing false copyright claims, and significantly limiting copyright terms. The brief was immediately taken down, and Khanna no longer works on Capitol Hill. (See House Republicans: Copyright Law Destroys Markets; It's Time For Real Reform; Heroic and Radical Republican Study Committee Copyright Reform Proposal Retracted under Pressure from MPAA and RIAA, Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing, Republican Study Committee Dumps Derek Khanna, Author Of Copyright Reform Brief, After Members Complain, and Copyright Shill’s Defense of the Status Quo.)
Khanna's latest effort was a petition urging the White House to make it legal under copyright law for people to unlock their cell phones. The White House agreed. (See Khanna's article in Forbes.com, White House Comes Out in Favor of Cellphone Unlocking and his National Review Online article, Why the GOP Has to Get Behind Cell-Phone Unlocking; also Derek Khanna: “Taking on real reform in a post-SOPA world – let’s start with cellphone unlocking”; White House Says Mobile Phone Unlocking Should Be Legal; and the TechCrunch piece, How A Fired Republican Staffer Became A Powerful Martyr For Internet Activists.)
We discussed these and related technology and IP issues.
Follow Khanna at https://twitter.com/DerekKhanna.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 029.
This is my appearance on Episode 18 of First Degree Liberty: Ethics with Stephan Kinsella, with hosts Chase Rachels and Michael Martelli. We discussed argumentation ethics and the title-transfer theory of contract, and other issues (originally recorded Mar. 4, 2013; released Mar. 5, 2013).
For background on some of the issues discussed, see my articles and posts:
Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability
Justice and Property Rights: Rothbard on Scarcity, Property, Contracts…
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 028.
My old friend Jack Criss (ProBizMS, Ready, Aim, Right!) and I had a discussion reminiscing about how we became friends 25 years ago, our early Objectivist phases, how communication and the movement has changed over the years, his 1980s libertarian radio talk show in Jackson, MS. We touched on many issues including where the liberty movement stands today, optimism vs. cynicism, entrepreneurs and government interference, Ayn Rand's best novel, why politics is futile and much more...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 027.
I was invited to be a guest on The Peter Mac Show in late 2009 and ended up staying on for both hours. It was a pretty in-depth interview. The host asked impressively intelligent questions for someone who had just started coming around to the anti-IP position (after reading my Intellectual Property and Libertarianism just the day before—impressive).
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 026.
This is FreeDomain Radio episode 2336, in which host Stefan Molyneux and I discussed libertarian aspects of corporations and limited liability law. (Originally recorded Feb. 22, 2013, released by FDR on Feb. 26.)
For more on this issue see my Libertarian Standard post Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation; and KOL100 | The Role of the Corporation and Limited Liability In a Free Society (PFS 2013).
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 025.
This is my appearance on Michael Shanklin's Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast with Michael Shanklin (Feb. 26, 2013; originally recorded Feb. 25, 2013). We discussed intellectual property and a few other matters, such as the Ron Paul vs RonPaul.Com dispute, Aaron Swartz, Corporatism, and the like. For the initial discussion of IP and what is wrong with it, I relied on the type of explanation I provide in Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 024.
[See also PFP102]
I previously podcasted my speech from September 2012 at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society in Bodrum, Turkey (KOL001 | "The (State's) Corruption of (Private) Law" (PFS 2012)). Later that day I and the other speakers from that day, including Jeff Tucker and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, participated in a general panel discussion and Q&A session, which is included in this podcast episode.
Topics discussed include the issue of preemptive attacks and standing threats, spanking and libertarianism, Gresham's law and law and legislation, strategies for liberty in life and how to avoid corruption in an unfree world. On the latter topic, I talked about the power of attraction and also vocally objecting, speaking out, when hearing statist sentiments from friends, co-workers, etc. There were also questions about how victims of aggression can achieve restitution from the aggressor, what does he have the right to do to the aggressor—issues such as proportionality, punishment, ostracism, and so on.
https://youtu.be/X9slH341ago
For other speeches at the PFS 2012 meeting, see the links in the Program, or the PFS Vimeo channel.
Day 3 Q&A Part 1 from Property & Freedom Society on Vimeo.
Day 3 Q&A Part 2 from Property & Freedom Society on Vimeo.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 023.
This is lecture 6 (of 6) of my 2011 Mises Academy course “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society.”
Video, Transcript and Slides below.
This lecture's topic is "Applications Continued; Common Libertarian Mistakes (Fraud Etc.)," and discusses:
Defense of corporations Common libertarian mistakes
Self-ownership Positive obligations Fraud
For slides for all six lectures, plus extensive hyperlinked suggested reading material, see this Libertarian Standard post. For a listing of the syllabus and topics covered in each lecture, see this Mises Academy Course Page (archived).
For more information, see my Mises Daily article “Introduction to Libertarian Legal Theory,” and Danny Sanchez’s post Study Libertarian Legal Theory Online with Stephan Kinsella.)
Video:
Slides:
The videos of all six lectures are also available on this playlist. TRANSCRIPT Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society, Lecture 6: Applications Continued; Common Libertarian Mistakes (Fraud Etc.) Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, March 7, 2011 00:00:02
STEPHAN KINSELLA: The cuckoo clock just went off. It’s zero past the hour. Okay, let’s get started on class number six, 24 people online. This is good. Oh, let me hit record. Hold on a second. And even my whiteboard is on. Okay, by popular request of some students, what I will try to do is defer any non-urgent or pertinent – immediately pertinent questions until the end of the class or until the Q&A session, the office hours later in the week on Wednesday depending on how long we go today. Or if I do stop, I will try to read the questions so people listening on audio only like in their cars will understand the context. So let’s get going.
00:01:00
Today is really about more applications, a lot of the applications of the ideas we’ve developed and talked about in the first five lectures, especially the first four lectures. So I’m going to talk for maybe one fourth – one third the class about corporations, which is a fascinating topic that I think confuses people when they don’t think clearly about it or don’t really have a good understanding of the underlying law that they’re really criticizing or discussing. Then we’re going to talk about just a lot of smaller issues that I’ve come across and collected over the years that libertarians quite often fumble or confuse or misstate, common libertarian misconceptions.
00:01:44
I have a lot of those in here that are in the slides. I probably will not be able to finish all those. They’re kind of randomly organized with the more important ones first or the more interesting ones first. But first let’s talk about corporations. Some administrative matters. So later this week, I’ll post the final exam. It might not be until Wednesday or Thursday, try to give you about a week to get it done from when we post it. Danny will announce that at that time. It will be weighted 60%/40%, so 60% for this and 40% for the mid-term.
00:02:16
I’ll let Danny answer that. Danny’s understanding is that these are all understood to be open book. Jim Bowman just asked if the test would be closed book. That’s what I’m answering now. What I will feel free to put questions up about would be everything I state in the lectures or the office hours all the reading material I have listed as suggested, not the optional reading material, and also the slides, which do have some embedded links to blog posts and things that would be fodder for questions. So go through all the slides, all the lectures, and the suggested reading material. That’s basically what’s going to be covered.
00:03:00
00:03:06
Okay, go on to slide three now. So if you remember, last class we talked about intellectual property law, and I just won’t go over all that here just to save time. You know what we talked about last time, but it was, I think,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 022.
This is lecture 5b (in addition to the 6 main lectures) of my 2011 Mises Academy course “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society.” The main lectures start at KOL018.
Video, Transcript and Slides below.
This lecture's topic is "Q&A"
For slides for the six main lectures, plus extensive hyperlinked suggested reading material, see this Libertarian Standard post. For a listing of the syllabus and topics covered in each lecture, see this Mises Academy Course Page (archived).
For more information, see my Mises Daily article “Introduction to Libertarian Legal Theory,” and Danny Sanchez’s post Study Libertarian Legal Theory Online with Stephan Kinsella.)
Video:
The videos of all six lectures plus this Q&A are also available on this playlist. TRANSCRIPT Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society, Lecture 5b: Q&A Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, Feb. 28, 2011 00:00:03
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I’m reading Matt’s comment now. I don’t understand how a lack of patent protection would work in some parts of the economy, pharmaceuticals for example. Prices are inflated. Okay, what were the incentives for these companies to extend large amounts of capital? Okay, well, I think I know where you’re going. I’ve heard this. Let me just answer this in a couple of ways. First of all, I don’t know if you’ve read a lot of Rand and others on the anti-trust question, for example. Okay, let me read the rest of it.
00:00:54
Okay, well, I would say first as a libertarian, our view is moral. Our view is moral. That is, the question is primarily who has the property right. So, for example, on anti-trust, a lot of utilitarian-type free market types would say – they have the arguments for why you don’t need anti-trust law. But they’re not really against it in principle if you do need them. They just think that there are good economic reasons to think that anti-trust is not necessary because companies can’t really collude that successfully because of the nature of the market.
00:01:29
But a more principled view is but companies have the right to collude. They have the right to fix prices. As long as they’re not violating anyone’s property rights, they have the right to do that, and I think that’s the fundamental approach to IP. Why do you have the right to tell me I can’t use my own property in the way that I see fit, even with something, my own invention, which is what patent laws do?
00:01:54
So if two companies are competing and they’re trying to find this wonder drug and they both find it around the same time, the first one who gets to the patent office can stop the other one from using their own idea. Why is that just? And I don’t think saying – asking a question, well, what’s the first company’s incentive to invest in this R&D? Asking a question is not an argument. I’m not being critical of you. I’m just saying it’s not an argument, and asking a question doesn’t justify the use of state force against my property rights. I mean it just doesn’t. The only thing that justifies that is if I commit aggression, and the competitor hasn’t committed aggression. They’re just using their own property as they see fit.
00:02:36
Now, I would highly recommend that you go to the free online copy of the book by Michele Boldrin and David Levine called Against Intellectual Monopoly. You can find the link on the resources section of C4SIF.org/resources. There’s a link to their book there. There’s a chapter on pharmaceutical patents, which is always trodded out as the best example of why we need patents. And they do a great empirical case just showing that actually it is not in practice in today’s world that useful, or sorry – that it’s not essential. You have to read it. It’s thorough and just devastating. They show that a lot of the cost of patents are for advertising or for things that are not protected by patents, etc.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 022.
This is lecture 5 (of 6) of my 2011 Mises Academy course “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society.” The remaining lectures follow in subsequent podcast episodes.
Video, Transcript and Slides below.
SEE ALSO Lecture 5b: Q&A [KOL022b].
This lecture's topic is "Intellectual Property and Related," and discusses:
Overview of types of IP Origins of IP The nature of property rights, role of scarcity, and the function of the market. Pro-IP arguments: utilitarian and deontological Defamation Free Speech and Property Rights (Rothbard) Proposed Reforms Imagining a post-IP world
For slides for all six lectures, plus extensive hyperlinked suggested reading material, see this Libertarian Standard post. For a listing of the syllabus and topics covered in each lecture, see this Mises Academy Course Page (archived).
For more information, see my Mises Daily article “Introduction to Libertarian Legal Theory,” and Danny Sanchez’s post Study Libertarian Legal Theory Online with Stephan Kinsella.)
Video:
Slides:
The videos of all six lectures are also available on this playlist. TRANSCRIPT Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society: Lecture 5: Intellectual Property and Related Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, Feb. 28, 2011 00:00:01
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I’m glad to be here, everybody. I just flew in from Colorado about an hour ago, so I was worried I wouldn’t make it here, but I did, so very good, and I broke no bones skiing in Telluride, so glad to be here. And we have about 21 people here, and thank you, Danny.
00:00:18
So today we’re going to talk about IP, intellectual property. And remember, this is something we covered in the six weeks in detail in another course, so I’m going to cover kind of the main points here but obviously not everything, and I will also cover some things we left off last. So last time – let’s go ahead and get into it because every class I think I’m going to finish in 60 minutes, and we go almost 90 minutes. So where we left off: We were talking about causation, aggression, and responsibility. And we talked about how you can be liable for inciting a crime and then also limitations on property versus limitations on action and why the fact that you can’t commit aggression doesn’t mean that rights are limited. It means that your actions are limited, not property rights. We also talked about strict liability, and we’re going to continue a little bit of that here.
00:01:09
So today we’ll talk about strict liability, and then we’ll get into IP, so I’ll just kind of finish off where we left off on the strict liability issues. So the concept of strict liability is one of these things. It’s a term that’s thrown around a lot by theorists and non-lawyers and just libertarians sort of casually, almost like the word fraud, which we talked about last time, and people don’t really give it a lot of thought.
00:01:40
Now, if you remember from our talk about causation and responsibility, you have to distinguish between behavior and action. So behavior would be something mechanical that you’re not responsible for like an epileptic fit or if someone picks up your arm and throws it at – or strikes someone else in the face with it, you didn’t do it. They used your arm to do it, but you didn’t do it. So we have to distinguish between mere behavior and intentional action, and this is actually why there’s a spectrum from first-degree murder and other crimes and down to mere torts, which are just negligence and things like this, all the way down to no responsibility whatsoever.
00:02:16
So the idea of strict liability is that you should be responsible, for example, for your property. So – and this is usually used in tort law, so if you sell a product that causes damage to the user, even if you weren’t negligent – so under the old law,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 021.
This is lecture 4 (of 6) of my 2011 Mises Academy course “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society.” The remaining lectures follow in subsequent podcast episodes.
Video, Transcript and Slides below.
This lecture's topic is "Causation, Aggression, Responsibility," and discusses:
Conspiracies and Incitement Strict Liability. Responsibility for Property. “Limitations” on property versus limitations on action
For slides for all six lectures, plus extensive hyperlinked suggested reading material, see this Libertarian Standard post. For a listing of the syllabus and topics covered in each lecture, see this Mises Academy Course Page (archived).
For more information, see my Mises Daily article “Introduction to Libertarian Legal Theory,” and Danny Sanchez’s post Study Libertarian Legal Theory Online with Stephan Kinsella.)
Video:
Slides:
The videos of all six lectures are also available on this playlist. TRANSCRIPT Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society, Lecture 4: Causation, Aggression, Responsibility Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, Feb. 21, 2011 00:00:01
STEPHAN KINSELLA: … anything procedural, administrative, random, libertarian in general. And by the way, also, in addition to cramming a lot of material into six lectures, next week’s lecture will be IP, which we covered in six weeks in another lecture, so we’re cramming a lot in there. So this course you’re getting a lot of bang for your buck I believe. Okay, go ahead, Jock. General question on economics. Okay, you’re starting a BA in economics, mainstream economics next year.
00:00:42
00:00:51
Okay. So your background is only in heterodox economics. Okay, so what’s the question? You know, I actually don’t know if I’m the best one to answer this question. I’m a lawyer. I’m not an economist. I’m a student of economics, although I have some opinions. I mean I would say I do think Murphy’s course is probably the best one to be honest. But I mean I had a couple of economics courses in my engineering major back in college, and I just learned real economics on my own from reading books from Rothbard and Mises and other things. So I think Murphy’s book looks really good to be honest. I want to go through it myself with my son when he gets old enough, so I’m thinking that’s a good starting point. But you’re going to have to learn to poop out the regular stuff to these guys so that you pass, so I would treat them separately, learning their economics and real economics.
00:01:59
Okay, let’s get started. Yeah, and Murphy has a really great interview with Jeff Tucker about the Mises Academy and his course, and he talks about how he basically learned economics by writing his book, and I believe that. I can understand that. There are others, but I think he really tried really hard to distill it and to find a way to formulate it properly.
00:02:22
Oh, you know what? I did not put the slides for this lecture on the course site. Let me email those to – Danny, are you there? I’ll email those to you. Maybe you can do that while we talk. Give me just a second, guys. I’m going to send these to Danny right now. Maybe he can upload those to me. Give me five seconds. Here we go. Okay, I’m sending these to Danny right now, so hopefully he’s listening and can post them while we speak. Sorry, I meant to do that before. I did that last week, and I forgot to do it this time. Okay, so they’ll be posted shortly.
00:03:15
All right, so tonight we’re going to talk about causation and some related things that – I’m going to cover a few things that we left off of last time and elaborate on a few matters. So last time we were talking about the legal system of the libertarian world, about courts, private courts, anarchy, things like this. We talked about contract theory, and also, I was going to get to why fraud is aggression,
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 020.
This is lecture 3 (of 6) of my 2011 Mises Academy course “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society.” The remaining lectures follow in subsequent podcast episodes.
Video, Transcript and Slides below.
This lecture's topic is "Applications I: Legal Systems, Contract, Fraud," and discusses:
Legislation and Law The significance of Roman Law Contract Theory
“written” agreements Inalienability Breach of contract Debtor’s Prison
For slides for all six lectures, plus extensive hyperlinked suggested reading material, see this Libertarian Standard post. For a listing of the syllabus and topics covered in each lecture, see this Mises Academy Course Page (archived).
For more information, see my Mises Daily article “Introduction to Libertarian Legal Theory,” and Danny Sanchez’s post Study Libertarian Legal Theory Online with Stephan Kinsella.)
Video:
Slides:
The videos of all six lectures are also available on this playlist. TRANSCRIPT Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society, Lecture 3: Applications I: Legal Systems, Contract, Fraud Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, Feb. 14, 2011 00:00:01
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yeah, Hoppe’s t-shirt is good. I have Hazlitt and two or three others. They’re really great. So happy Valentine’s Day, everybody for whom it’s still that day. We have 26 people online, about, I think, one-third or maybe one-fourth of the course actually. I guess 27 now. I guess a lot of people are going to catch this after. Okay, so we’re about to start. So tonight we’re going to have some applications of the principles we’ve developed so far, and we’re going to focus on legal systems and contract and fraud. And just a quick point. So this is week three, so later this week we will post the mid-term exam, and the weighting will be 40% of the total score. That’s right. Everyone else is married.
00:00:53
So 40% of the score will be this test and 60% the final, and as I mentioned in the first class, the course is based upon what I say here in the course and the office hours, so you should listen to the office hours and the suggested reading material, not the optional, and all these slides here because the slides have some reading material that I do not read everything in them. But the optional reading material, I will not test for the main credit based on those. Well, it depends on when we put it up, Trina. We’ll put the exam later this week, and we’ll probably give you seven days to complete it, so we’ll let you know when we post it.
00:01:43
Okay, now where did we leave off? We left off last time on – we talked about property rights and scarcity and then punishment and restitution and various sort of applications to that like threats and stalking and Rothbard on air pollution and torts and restitution versus punishment, etc. We also talked regarding legal theory about legal positivism and logical positivism. And I will say that I think that part of the talk is particularly interesting because you will almost never hear anyone discuss those two things together, although, as we discussed last time, you can definitely see some connections. And I think pretty much only an Austrian can appreciate those connections, and I don’t claim to flesh them all out, but something really worth thinking about and to explore.
00:02:33
And we also talked about some of the ways in which anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-libertarianism could work, whether we can punish outlaws who are not members of any agency, how restitution would work, punishment and ostracism and things like that, so that’s where we left off. So now let’s continue. Now, I will say that the first two lectures were very crammed. I really think this is more of a seven or eight-lecture course, so the first two had a lot of stuff crammed in.
00:03:04
But luckily, I could spill over some of the questions to the of...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 019.
This is lecture 2 (of 6) of my 2011 Mises Academy course “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society.” The remaining lectures follow in subsequent podcast episodes.
Video, Transcript and Slides below.
This lecture's topic is "Libertarian Basics: Rights and Law-Continued," and discusses:
Anarcho-libertarianism (cont.) Justice: Punishment and Restitution
The Case of Threats Stalking Spam Torts and Negligence
Legal Positivism and Logical Positivism
For slides for all six lectures, plus extensive hyperlinked suggested reading material, see this Libertarian Standard post. For a listing of the syllabus and topics covered in each lecture, see this Mises Academy Course Page (archived).
For more information, see my Mises Daily article “Introduction to Libertarian Legal Theory,” and Danny Sanchez’s post Study Libertarian Legal Theory Online with Stephan Kinsella.)
Video:
Slides:
The videos of all six lectures are also available on this playlist. TRANSCRIPT Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society, Lecture 2: Libertarian Basic Rights: Rights and Law, Continued Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, Feb. 7, 2011 00:00:03
STEPHAN KINSELLA: My take on this course is we have basically more than six lectures worth of material to squeeze in, which I think is good for you guys. My last course I gave, I spoke about 60 minutes per lecture, and then we talked about – we had about 30 minutes of Q&A. Last time, we spoke the entire 90 minutes plus some, and then I’m doing office hours this time on Wednesdays, which works well. So if we go the whole 90 minutes, that will – we have time to do Q&A on Wednesdays, so I think that’s working fine. So you guys are getting eight or nine weeks’ worth of lectures in this six weeks, so I think that’s fine.
00:00:47
Phil Collins, I’ve heard that. I’ve heard Tracy Byrd. I think he’s an American country singer, and when I was younger and had hair, I was called Alex Keaton or Michael J. Fox, but I don’t think there’s a resemblance. But anyway, Max, I have a couple of ideas for new courses. I’m considering doing a basic libertarian course like introduction to libertarianism, kind of following Hubert’s book a little bit. I’m not sure. I want to wait and see how this one goes and see how I could blend those two or separate those two. And there’s some kind of micro courses I have in mind too like Austrian Law and Economics, things like that, so let’s wait and see how it goes.
00:01:41
So what I’m thinking is this. Today we have more of a sane schedule to fill, and if we go the entire 90 minutes, which I don’t think we will, then as I said, I can go to Q&A on Thursdays. By the way, I had a really interesting appearance on an American podcast, which is called This Week in Law. If you go to T-W-I-T – excuse me – dot tv, twit.tv, it’s part of the TWiT or This Week in Tech network. And it was last Friday, and it’s already up, and I think it went really well. They were amazingly receptive to a lot of fairly radical libertarian ideas that I presented on the state and intellectual property and things like that. So some of you might find that of interest.
00:02:33
Okay, just before we get into the depths of this, we have 33 online now. That’s good. Is the video okay, and is the audio okay? Can you hear me? That’s the most important thing. And can you see the video? Everyone okay? It’s four past midnight for some of us, four past four in the morning for some of us, so let’s proceed.
00:02:58
Okay, so tonight’s lecture I’m calling Libertarian Basics: Rights and Law, Continued. I’m kind of following up on what was discussed last time and adding some more things. And I’m going to – and by the way, our last Q&A session at the office hours on last Wednesday was recorded as well, and the recording came out pretty good even though Danny wasn’t on boar...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 018.
This is lecture 1 (of 6) of my 2011 Mises Academy course “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society.” The remaining lectures follow in subsequent podcast episodes.
Video, Transcript and Slides below.
For the Mid-Term Test and Final Exam given during the course, see "Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society": Mid-Term Test and Final Exam (Mises Academy 2011).
[Update: Lecture 5b, Q&A (KOL022b), has just been added]
This lecture's topic is "Libertarian Basics: Rights and Law," and discusses:
Legal Theory and Austrian Economics Scarcity and Property Rights
Rights as property rights
The Nature of rights
the Is-Ought Problem Argumentation Ethics and Estoppel Universalizability
Essence of Libertarianism
Self-ownership Homesteading
Lockean proviso Labor ownership and mixing
Anarcho-libertarianism
For slides for all six lectures, plus extensive hyperlinked suggested reading material, see this Libertarian Standard post. For a listing of the syllabus and topics covered in each lecture, see this Mises Academy Course Page (archived).
For more information, see my Mises Daily article "Introduction to Libertarian Legal Theory," and Danny Sanchez's post Study Libertarian Legal Theory Online with Stephan Kinsella.)
Video:
https://youtu.be/NawbP9yteOA
Slides:
The videos of all six lectures are also available on this playlist. TRANSCRIPT Libertarian Legal Theory, Lecture 1: Libertarian Basics: Rights and Law Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, Jan. 31, 2011 00:00:00
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Good morning to people that it’s morning for. Good evening to people in Europe. And good evening and afternoon to people in America. So the course is called Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society. Now, tonight I will spend a little bit more in the preliminaries than I will in the other courses. So we might spend 15 or so minutes on some things that won’t waste as much time in next class and the subsequent classes.
00:00:33
So it’s called Libertarian Legal Theory. It’s not really what lawyers would think of as legal theory. It’s more how to apply libertarian insights to what the law should be, so that’s why it’s legal theory. Now, having some legal background and knowledge can help, but you certainly don’t have to be a lawyer to understand this stuff, and in fact, being a lawyer can sometimes be a hindrance because lawyers are steeped in the statist and the positivist legal system. This – hold on just a second. Danny left. Let me make sure he’s okay.
00:01:12
00:01:20
Okay, so – okay, Danny is still there. Okay, I see. So let me just give a little background about this course. We picked the title “Property, Conflict, and Society” because that is what I think libertarianism all boils down to. Now, the material in this course, to be honest, we have six lectures. I think there’s enough material here for at least seven or eight or nine or maybe ten lectures. So I’m going to squeeze as much in as I can. If we have to leave some out, I have some things I can cut out and give you readings for, for later. There’s a lot of material. It should be a lot of fun and very interesting.
00:01:57
And these classes last for about 90 minutes. What I did last class, the IP class I did, I spoke for about 50-60 minutes, and we took questions and answers for about 30 minutes for the rest of the class. What I’m going to do this time, if I need to, I will speak for the entire 90 minutes if I need to, to get all the material in. And then I can stay later for more Q&A if people want me to, and I’m also going to do office hours on Wednesdays at 7 p.m. London time. And I may do another office hours like every other week at a later or earlier time during the day, which is better for Americans, but the 7 p.m. London time is designed to be better for non-we...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 017.
I was interviewed last night on the Liberty Beat podcast, episode 33 (Sunday, Feb. 17, 2013). Hosts Daniel Benoy, David Shepherd, and Chinaman. We had a nice, long, in-depth discussion about IP, and also the Ron Paul v. ronpaul.com dispute, and other topics as noted below.
Notes from the Liberty Beat release: Liberty Beat Podcast - Episode 33 - Stephan Kinsella
Intellectual Property Attorney and outspoken libertarian Stephan Kinsella joins us today to give the most eloquent opposition to concept of ‘Intellectual Property’ we’ve ever had on the show. Listen in while we explore the complex distortions created by this destructive system!
Topics:
State Versus Freedom & Technology Special Guest: Stephan Kinsella Locke-ian Ideas & Intellectual Property Patent & Copyright First Sale Doctrine (Omega v. Costco) Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Chanel & Trademarks WTO Antigua $25m Ideas Who owns the copyrights of a picture? Linking to copyrighted material Aaron Swartz, PACER & JSTOR Copyright & Plagiarism & Trademark Exception to the DMCA Ron Paul & the Domain Name Squatters Dead Space 3 & the farming glitch Contracts of Adhesion
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 016.
I appeared last night on Adam vs. the Man (episode 192) to discuss the Ron Paul v. Ronpaul.com dispute. Our segment goes from about 1:30:30 to about 1:54:30, which is excerpted here.
Excerpt:
Full show:
See also:
Mike Masnick, Ron Paul, UN Hater, Asks UN To Take RonPaul.com Forcefully From Ron Paul's Biggest Supporters, TechDirt Jeff Tucker and Stefan Molyneux, FreeDomainRadio (Feb. 11, 2013, Youtube, FDR episode 2327) Brad R, DOES RON PAUL OWN HIS NAME?, C4SIF Andrew Ian Dodge, Ron Paul Turns on Grassroots Supports Sites With Help of UN Organization, Huffington Post Nancy Scola, Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com: How Coalitions Crack Up in the Internet Age, The Atlantic
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 015.
YAL interview (October 7, 2009) by Matt Cockerill of Young Americans for Liberty. Our interview covered several topics, such as minarchism vs. anarcho-libertarianism, the non-aggression principle, gay marriage, restitution vs. retribution, intellectual property, and pessimism and activism. (YouTube version)
For more on some of these topics, see my posts/articles:
California Gay Marriage Law Overturned: What Should Libertarians Think?; Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach; IP-related resources at C4SIF; The Trouble with Libertarian Activism; What Libertarianism Is; What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist; Why I’m a Libertarian — or, Why Libertarianism is Beautiful.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 014.
I published a controversial article, New Israel: A Win-Win-Win Proposal, back in 2001 on LewRockwell.com, in which I proposed relocating Israel to U.S. public lands such as Utah or the Anwar area of Alaska. I was interviewed about this topic by the bizarro quasi-libertarian Eric Dondero on Libertarian Politics Live on Aug. 27, 2007 (Israelis vs. Arabs: What’s the solution?).
For updates and related articles, see:
Israeli TV Decision Picking on Israel–Matthew Bargainer Yet more on “New Israel" Ken Layne, FoxNews.com, How 'Bout Relocating Israel to Mexico? “Fight World War IV” - Or Let Israelis Immigrate?, by Paul Craig Roberts, VDARE Israel's end-times gamble, by Gary DeMar, WorldNetDaily.com Ronald Bailey, “New Exodus: Let Jews leave Europe for America," April 2, 2003 issue of ReasonOnline A Jewish State
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 013.
“Intellectual Property and Libertarianism,” speech presented at Mises University 2009 (July 30, 2009; audio & video; Youtube version embedded below); speech podcast on The Lew Rockwell Show, #131, as The Intellectual Property Racket (Aug. 19, 2009).
This presentation was different than others I've done in the past on IP, partly because, as it for students, I tried to start from the ground up, and also to integrate the proper approach to IP with the essential principles of libertarian political philosophy. Thus part of the talk summarized my view of what libertarianism is, and then applied it to IP; this summary view of the libertarian framework was distilled from a more elaborated version, contained in my "What Libertarianism Is."
My article “Intellectual Property and Libertarianism,” Mises Daily (Nov. 17, 2009), was based in part on this speech, and also on “What Libertarianism Is.” An earlier version (without endnotes) was published as “Intellectual Property and Libertarianism” [local PDF; Liberty‘s online version], Liberty vol. 23, no. 11 (Dec. 2009), p. 27.
See also Yeager and Other Letters Re Liberty article “Intellectual Property and Libertarianism”, with my letter responding to comments on my Liberty article.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 012.
This is my Rothbard Memorial Lecture at the Mises Institute's Austrian Scholars Conference (2008), “The Intellectual Property Quagmire, or, The Perils of Libertarian Creationism" [Originally entitled Rethinking IP Completely"] (Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn AL, March 13, 2008; Powerpoint; Slideshare.net Presentation; PDF version; Video). [Mises audio]
Transcript below.
Youtube:
https://youtu.be/e2qOcFK6IhU
Original Youtube version and mirror version. TRANSCRIPT “The Intellectual Property Quagmire, or, The Perils of Libertarian Creationism," the Rothbard Memorial Lecture at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's Austrian Scholars Conference (Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn AL, March 13, 2008; by Stephan Kinsella 00:00:03
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Thanks, Joe. For some reason, all of a sudden, I feel a little bit like I’m at a Lawyers Anonymous meeting. Hi. I’m Norman. I am an intellectual property attorney. Jeff had titled this the—Rethinking IP Completely, and I came up with a little bit more descriptive title here, and it will come up in a little bit. But I spelled out what IP means. Apparently, a lot of people don’t even know what IP is.
00:00:30
So what I’m going to talk about is we live in an age of technological marvels as we all know. I won’t elaborate that. We have laser pointers, airplanes, computers, the internet, plasma televisions. We have abundance of the arts, movies, film. Now, we libertarians would say this is because individual creativity in an unhampered free market, or free enough, has led to this. But many people say that’s not sufficient. There’s something else that’s necessary for these intellectual creations to have occurred, which is intellectual property law, primarily patent and copyright law. Even libertarians have tended to accept this idea. After all, it’s intellectual property, and we support property rights. It’s a type of property. So is it? Well, I’m going to focus primarily tonight on patents and copyrights. Patents and copyrights, also mask works, trademarks, and trade secrets are considered to be types of intellectual property.
00:01:34
There are three types of patents: utility, plant, and design patents. There’s copyrights, and there are sort of related legislative rights like databases, which are pending, and boat hull designs, which are, of course, very important. Design patents are similar to copyright, but no one really knows exactly how.
00:01:55
So I’m going to just give a little bit of a background on what they are without boring you too much, and I’ll give some—plenty of examples in a minute to make it a little bit more interesting. But because most people, from what I’ve seen, especially on the pro-IP side, don’t really know what IP is. I’ll see trademark, copyright, and patent confused all the time. That’s fine. It’s a specialized discipline, and yet they’re in favor of this, even though they don’t really know the difference.
00:02:21
So a copyright protects original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible form of expression—songs, lyrics, novels, paintings, MP3 files. It’s not just the right to copy. It’s a bundle of rights—the right to reproduce or prepare derivative works or to perform the work publicly and some other works as well. Now, the term of copyright nowadays is very long, 70 years after the life of the author, so it’s practically infinite nowadays.
00:02:49
One thing that’s commonly misunderstood, and we’ll talk about this in the panel tomorrow, copyright is secured automatically upon creation. You don’t have to put a copyright notice on it. You don’t have to register it. These are totally irrelevant. In fact, I have a copyright in this page right now, and it’s self-referential, as you can see.
00:03:11
So what it means is you can’t copy this without my permission, and copyright is a noun, not a verb.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 011.
This is an interview I did with Lew Rockwell, from 2008: “Intellectual ‘Property,’” The Lew Rockwell Show (Sept. 24, 2008)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 010.
I appeared recently on Decline to State, discussing Locke, property rights, intellectual property, anarchy, and so on; see KOL009. I also participated in the Aftershow. From their description: Show #39.1: Aftershow for January 23 2013
Stephan Kinsella joins us for the aftershow. He answers some listener questions, talks about dispute resolution and contract, and shares his many insights into the liberty movement at large. Enjoy this special bonus content, everyone!
Around 3:30, Rudd-O mentions that his having his eyes opened on IP helped him become a full-fledged libertarian/anarchist. It's interesting to me that there are so many paths to liberty: Rand, Read, Bastiat, Milton Friedman, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Ron Paul, and even IP abolitionism. Amazing.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 009.
I appeared recently on Decline to State, discussing Locke, property rights, intellectual property, anarchy, and so on. From their description: Show #39: January 23 2013 with Stephan Kinsella — by The Decline to State team — last modified Jan 29, 2013 02:15 PM
The Decline to State team sits down with patent lawyer and libertarian author Stephan Kinsella. We delve deep into the roots of property rights - where do they come from? Was Locke wrong? Why is intellectual property fundamentally different from normal property? How long does it take Decline to State to bring up bitcoins? Listen to find out answers to these perplexing questions! The Aftershow appears in KOL010.
One interesting thing we discuss is the fact that in libertarian discussions nowadays, it's only a matter of time before Bitcoin comes up—or, in my case, intellectual property. Sort of a libertarian version of Godwin's Law. So it was funny that after this was discussed, we went for a long stretch avoiding both topics, until I called to the hosts' attention that we had succeeded in doing this.
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 008.
This is an audiobook version of my Against Intellectual Property (1 hr 54 min.); .mp3 format or .m4b iTunes book format (each about 57M); also available in a Mises.org version and on iTunes U. Narrated by Jock Coats.
A second version is here: KOL373 | Against Intellectual Property (audiobook #2).
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 007.
This is an audio version of my article What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist, January 20, 2004, LewRockwell.com (narrated by yours truly).
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 006.
This is an audio version of my article How We Come To Own Ourselves, Mises Daily (Sep. 7, 2006) (Mises.org blog discussion; narrated by Graham Wright).
Alternative version:
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 005.
This is an audio version of my article, “What Libertarianism Is,” Mises Daily (August 21, 2009) (narrated by Graham Wright). The article was originally published in Hülsmann & Kinsella, eds., Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Mises Institute, 2009).
Alternative youtube version:
https://youtu.be/enx5AKPS67Y
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 004.
Update: See also Thoughts on Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery, Alienability vs. Inalienability, Property and Contract, Rothbard and Evers (Jan. 9, 2022); Batting about voluntary slavery (Oct. 5, 2011); Slavery, Inalienability, Economics, and Ethics
.
Transcript below.
Walter and me at my dad's house in Prairieville, Louisiana, for a (Catholic) baptism party for my son, October 2003
My longtime friend Walter Block was recently in town (Houston) and stayed over at my house one night. While we visited we had several discussions on libertarian theory, as we usually do when we see each other. He agreed to let me record a discussion on one of the few issues we do not completely agree on: voluntary slavery; we recorded this last night (Jan. 26, 2013). Walter believes voluntary slavery contracts ought to be enforceable in a private law society, and in this I believe he is wrong and in the minority of libertarians (with Nozick, say). We touched on a variety of issues, including debtor's prison, how acquisition of body-rights differs from Lockean homesteading, and the like.
Youtube:
Some of my writing relevant to this topic and our discussion include:
A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith, Winter 1998-99, Journal of Libertarian Studies. 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
Walter's articles on this topic include:
Toward a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability: A Critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Gordon, Smith, Kinsella and Epstein, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 17, No. 2, Spring 2003, pp. 39-85 “Alienability: Reply to Kuflik,” Humanomics. Vol. 23, No. 3, 2007, pp. 117-136 “Are Alienability and the Apriori of Argument Logically Incompatible?” Dialogue, Vol. 1, No. 1. 2004. Alienability, Inalienability, Paternalism and the Law: Reply to Kronman American Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 28, No. 3, Summer 2001, pp. 351-371 Market Inalienability Once Again: Reply to Radin Thomas Jefferson Law Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, Fall 1999, pp. 37-88 Alienability, Inalienability, Paternalism and the Law: Reply to Kronman
Update: see this Facebook post:
Stephan Kinsella: I agree with David Gordon. I disagree with pro-voluntary slavery libertarians, like Walter Block (Thomas L. Knapp is another, though he pettifogs on the use of the term "voluntary slavery"). Jeremiah Dyke: I too think it's insane not to have the ability to contract any percentage of your labor for any duration of time. [Sarcasm] Stephan Kinsella: This is not an argument. Abilities don't come from opinions. Let's be clear: to justify voluntary slavery means you have to justify the use of force by a would-be "master" against a would-be "slave", if the slave tries to run away or changes his mind or disobeys an order. The libertarian thinks use of violence against another person's body is unjustified aggression, unless it is (a) consented to, or (b) in response to aggression. But the slave has not committed aggression, so (b) is not a possible justification. Some alienabilists disingenuously argue that it IS "aggression" since the master owns the slave's body, so it's trespass (aggression) for the slave to use the master's property (the slave's body) in ways the owner (master) does not consent to. This argument is disingenuous because it is question-begging; it presupposes the legitimacy of body-alienability, in order to prove it. So this does not fly. I will say that I get very tired of people who engage in question-begging arguments. They do this all the time in IP -- where they label an act of c...
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 003.
I was interviewed recently by my friend and The Libertarian Standard co-blogger, libertarian philosopher Geoffrey Allan Plauché, and Matthew Alexander for the inaugural episode of their new Prometheus Unbound Podcast. I'm posting here as KOL episode 003. Since we discussed IP and Geoff and Matthew are both fellow anti-IP anarcho-libertarians, I'm sure they won't mind! ;) Prometheus Unbound is an original, well-done, and excellent "webzine featuring news, reviews, interviews, and commentary on speculative fiction and literature from a libertarian perspective." Libertarians and others who enjoy sci-fi, fantasy, literature, etc. should subscribe to their podcast feed.
Here's an excerpt from Geoff's blog post announcing PUP001.
PUP001 | Interview with Stephan Kinsella by GEOFFREY ALLAN PLAUCHÉ on JANUARY 24, 2013 @ 11:57 AM · 0 COMMENTS
At long last, here is the first episode of our new, original podcast.
First, Matthew and I break the ice by briefly talking about what we’ve been reading recently. I had just finished Kameron Hurley’s debut novel God’s War. Overall, I think it’s a good effort with an interesting story and world-building but is not without its flaws. Matthew had recently finished Live Free or Die by John Ringo. It was a 2011 Prometheus Award finalist, not a winner as I mistakenly thought while recording the podcast and, according to Matthew, didn’t deserve to be.
Our interview with Stephan takes up most of the episode. It’s around 53 minutes long and starts 9:40 minutes in. For those who don’t already know him, Stephan Kinsella is a patent attorney and prominent libertarian legal scholar. He is best known for his opposition to intellectual property.
We invited Stephan on the show to discuss the problems of intellectual property and piracy in the Digital Age. But first we had to ask him about his love of science fiction and fantasy. We got him to mention some of his favorite authors and books (see below for a list), and we even talked about the Hobbit movie for a bit.
Then, at about 23:15 in, we dove into the meat of the interview. Stephan explained the historical origin of copyright (censorship) and patents (government grants of monopoly privilege, which is what copyright is now too really), how intellectual property has shaped and distorted the film and publishing industries, including Hollywood’s move to California to avoid patent disputes, and why reform is not enough. We also discussed how the Digital Age — the age of the internet, smartphone, ereader, and globalization — is making the evils of copyright and patents more obvious and acute while at the same time undermining traditional business models built around intellectual property. And finally, we explore ways artistic creators might earn a living in a world without intellectual property laws.
Read more>>
[local download link]
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 002.
A reading of one of my earlier IP articles by Ian Freeman on Free Talk Live, from the 8/31/07 show [FTL audio; starts around 5:25]. The article is "Do patents and copyrights undermine private property?: Yes," Insight magazine, May 21, 2001 (containing a response by CEI's James DeLong).
[As noted in the first episode, I will occasionally include in the feed older material such as interviews, speeches, and readings of various publications, interleaved between newer episodes.]
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 001.
See also: PFP098 | Stephan Kinsella, The (State's) Corruption of (Private) Law (PFS 2012)
I delivered this speech in September 2012 for the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society in Bodrum, Turkey. The audio of my speech was corrupted due to a technical error, so I re-recorded a version of the speech; audio and streaming below. For others, see the links in the Program, or the PFS Vimeo channel. Other speeches will be uploaded presently.
(This is the inaugural entry to my new podcast, Kinsella on Liberty.)
The talk was largely based on two previous papers:
“Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995), p. 132 Condensed version: Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010)
Update: see also Is English Common Law Libertarian? and KOL129 | Speech to Montessori Students: “The Story of Law: What Is Law, and Where Does it Come From?” (Powerpoint; PDF)
[PFS; TLS]