Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 480. This is my talk at the Liberland Constitution Christmas Party Prague 2025, Dec. 19, 2025, based on the article below, which will be included in the book based on the proceedings, First Constitutional Convention of the Free Republic of Liberland, Vít Jedlička, ed. (Dec. 19, 2025; forthcoming). The transcript is also below. Pictures of the event may be be found at Prague 2025: Liberland Constitution Celebration: Photos; also Hoppe, Fusillo, Kinsella Speak at Liberland Constitution Celebration, and Vit's post at Facebook and my facebook post. This audio is from my iphone; video and better audio, and that of other talks, will be released in due course. Related: First Constitutional Convention of the Free Republic of Liberland, Vít Jedlička, ed. (Dec. 19, 2025; forthcoming) (google docs version) Liberland press release Liberland Prepares for a Historic Christmas Celebration and Constitutional Milestone Prague 2025: Liberland Constitution Celebration: Photos Liberland Constitution Christmas Party Prague 2025 Hoppe, Fusillo, Kinsella Speak at Liberland Constitution Celebration Fusillo on the Universal Principles of Liberty and Liberland KOL478 | Haman Nature Hn 185: The Universal Principles of Liberty KOL474 | Where The Common Law Goes Wrong (PFS 2025) Libertarian Nation and Related Projects KOL473 | The Universal Principles of Liberty, with Mark Maresca of The White Pillbox Announcing the Universal Principles of Liberty As noted in Liberland Constitution Christmas Party Prague 2025, despite my frequent criticisms of libertarian activists and activism over the years, and despite my preference for the theoretical side of things, I've been involved in various activist projects for over the years, including helping to draft early versions of the Liberland Constitution. (( The Voluntaryist Constitution. )) I've met Liberland's President, Vít Jedlička, and previous meetings of the Property and Freedom Society. At this year's PFS meeting, he invited me, Alessandro Fusillo, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe to the Liberland meeting in Prague this December. We did attend. It was a marvelous event. Related: My Failed Libertarian Speaking Hiatus; Memories of Mises Institute and Other Events, 1988–20192025 KOL345 | Kinsella's Libertarian “Constitution” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PorcFest 2021) KOL359 | State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PFS 2021) The Liberland Constitution and Libertarian Principles Stephan Kinsella[*] Remarks prepared for the Liberland Christmas Party and Constitutional Reading, Prague, Dec. 19, 2025   I would like to discuss the issue of “constitutions” and states, and their relation to human freedom. I. Man, Action, and Freedom A. Acting Man A free society has long been the aspiration and dream of liberals of all types, including modern libertarians.[2] What exactly is freedom? To understand this we must understand the nature of human action in the world. Man finds himself in a world of scarcity and hardship, where nothing is guaranteed to him—neither food, nor shelter, nor safety, nor survival. Acting man is aware of his present state and the world around him, of the receding past, and the coming future. He lives in the present, always moving from the immediate past into the coming future. He constantly faces uneasiness in his present condition and about the future anticipates is coming. He is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, as implied by the existence of scarcity and uneasiness, and yet he can act: he can acquire knowledge: he can learn what ends are possible and what scarce means (resources) can cause things to happen. He can use his body, which he directly controls, and he can acquire and possess and use resources in the world by grappling with them using his body, to make things happen—to give rise to a different future than the one he foresees will arrive without his intervention.[3] Knowledge about the world—about causal laws, recipes, facts about the world and his environment, about possible ends he could choose and possible means he could employ—and the availability and employment of causally efficacious resources together make successful human action possible.[4] It makes possible the achievement of ends and the alleviation of felt uneasiness. By using one's mind and body it is possible to succeed, to achieve what Mises would term psychic proft.[5] B. Acting Man in Isolation For Crusoe on his island what concerns acting man is causal and technical knowledge, and knowledge about contingent facts in his world—and the availability of means of action. For him he may face wild animals, injury, lightning and storms and drought and disease, and any number of challenges, but the concept of freedom does not arise. There is only successful action, or profit, and life; and loss and failure, and death. C. Acting Man in Society With the presence of other people man, the social animal, can benefit from the comforts of society, from collective cooperation, from intercourse and trade, from the division and specialization of labor. But there is also the possibility of violent conflict over the use of the scarce means of action that are essential for successful human action. Other people are a potential benefit but also a potential threat. Perhaps because men are social animals have some empathy for others, and perhaps because they understand that violence is not productive, they prefer peaceful and productive use of resources, trade, and cooperation to violence, conflict, and strife.[6] Thus there tends to emerge in society the institution of property rights: widespread social respect for and mutual recognition of property rights rooted in original appropriation and contractual title transfer.[7] Unfortunately, this tends to give rise to an agency—the state—that claims the right to tax and to ultimate decision-making and law-making. As Hoppe notes, Let me begin with the definition of a state. What must an agent be able to do to qualify as a state? This agent must be able to insist that all conflicts among the inhabitants of a given territory be brought to him for ultimate decision-making or be subject to his final review. In particular, this agent must be able to insist that all conflicts involving himself be adjudicated by him or his agent. And implied in the power to exclude all others from acting as ultimate judge, as the second defining characteristic of a state, is the agent's power to tax: to unilaterally determine the price that justice seekers must pay for his services. Based on this definition of a state, it is easy to understand why a desire to control a state might exist. For whoever is a monopolist of final arbitration within a given territory can make laws. And he who can legislate can also tax. Surely, this is an enviable position.[8] The purpose of property rights, of justice, is to permit men to use their own bodies and peacefully acquired (meaning: acquired by original appropriation, which violates no one's rights as the resource is unowned; or by consensual contractual transfer from a previous owner, which also violates no one's rights as the owner consents to the transfer) scarce means without conflict from others. It is so that men are free to use their own bodies or resources without interference from others. II. Freedom in Society Thus terms like freedom and liberty denote a state of affairs where acting man is free to use his body and other scarce resources in the world without physical interference by others—without conflict. It refers to a world where men are free from interference by private trespassers and also free from institutionalized interference by a state. Freedom and liberty just mean the absence of aggression with private property rights. Ideally, a free society means having either no state at all or a minimal state (minarchy) restricted to preventing aggression defined in terms of property rights,[9] and in a society with a largely libertarian ethos and minimal private crime. In such a society there is widespread liberty because there is little private crime and little to no institutionalize crime. A. Freedom and State Aggression But we live in a world governed by non-minimal states. They control most habitable territory on the earth. They compel membership and payment of taxes and monopolize their services, outlawing competitors. By legislative decree, these states prohibit not only acts that are malum in se but acts that are merely malum prohibitum. Although the justification for the agency that polices crime is to reduce aggression by private trespassers, with the state there is more private crime than there would be otherwise, because states are necessarily inefficient an also because they criminalize non-criminal actions.[10] All states are, in fact, criminal (and even minimal states would be criminal, even if they managed to ever emerge); all states engage in institutionalized aggression against private property rights. As Hoppe notes: socialism, by no means an invention of nineteenth century Marxism but much older, must be conceptualized as an institutionalized interference with or aggression against private property and private property claims. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a social system based on the explicit recognition of private property and of nonaggressive, contractual exchanges between private property owners. Implied in this remark, as will become clear in the course of this treatise, is the belief that there must then exist varying types and degrees of socialism and capitalism, i.e., varying degrees to which private property rights are respected or ignored. Societies are not simply capitalist or socialist. Indeed, all existing societies are socialist to some extent. … Next to the concept of action, property is the most basic category in the social sciences.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 479. Libertarian Nicholas Sinard asked me to field some questions about the referenced issues, so we did so. (Recorded Dec. 10, 2025.) https://youtu.be/DlbDlmuUPW0 Regarding our discussion of my previous comments about the definition of rights, and what rights are justified. As a definitional matter, a legal right is a legally enforceable claim to the exclusive use of a resource. As to what rights libertarians think are justified, I have discussed the idea that the only rights that are legitimate or just are those that the assertion of which cannot be coherently criticized. The reason is rooted in the logic of argumentation ethics and my estoppel defense of rights, e.g. society may justly punish those who have initiated force, in a manner proportionate to their initiation of force and to the consequences thereof, because they cannot coherently object to such punishment") Stephan Kinsella, "A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights," in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023). See also chapters 6. Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights, 7. Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan, and 22. The Undeniable Morality of Capitalism, et pass.; and other writing such as KOL451 | Debating the Nature of Rights on The Rational Egoist (Michael Liebowitz) (from the transcript): [12:25–19:47] I think when people say that I have a right to X what they're really saying is if "I were to use force to defend my claim to this space" I can't be coherently criticized. In other words, my proposed use of force to defend this space, is just, is justified. Which is why it ties into what laws are justified. Because a law is just a social recognition, by your society—your local neighbors, the legal system—that they recognize your claim, and they're willing to endorse or support your use of force to defend yourself. So ultimately when we say there's a right, what we're saying is that if the legal system uses force to defend your claimed right, that use of force itself is justified. So this is a complicated way of saying what libertarians often say,  something like: it's either ballots or bullets. It always comes down to physical force in the end. So when you have a law, what you're saying is that the legal principle that we're that proposing—like defending my house, or my body from rape or murder—we're saying that if you were to use force to defend yourself, or if the legal system would do so in your name, then that would not be unjustified. And I think that's ultimately the claim. So what you're saying is ... the reason I call it a metanorm (( Rights as Metanorms; Rights and Morals as Intersecting Sets Not as Subset of Morals. )) is because ... Well, I distinguish between morality, and the justice of the legal system. So for example—and I think maybe Rand might agree with me on this, I'm not sure (( See, e.g, these tweets by Objectivist Michael Liebowitz, admitting that in some cases it might not only be moral to violate a right but immoral not to: 1, 2 ("Suppose a guy is driving with his son, and someone shoots up his car, badly wounding the son and taking out the tires. There is no one around, and he needs to get his son to a hospital. He sees an unattended parked car and steals it, getting his son the help he needs. That would be both virtuous and a crime."), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ("The person who wouldn't steal a dollar to prevent his children from being tortured is the person who should face harsh moral judgment."), 8.  ))—but a simplistic view of morality, which most libertarians might have—and I don't mean to be critical by saying simplistic, because it's an attempt to distinguish between...  so most people would say that "you shouldn't do drugs" and therefore they're not opposed to a law outlawing drugs, because to their simplistic linear mind, if it's immoral, it should be made illegal. But if you have a kind of a more nuanced view of things, you understand that, well just because something is immoral, doesn't mean it should be illegal. That's the libertarian view—its like, okay, doing drugs, being a  drug addict might be immoral, it might be harmful to your life, but you're not violating someone's rights. So the government [the state] is not justified in outlawing it. So that's like a second level. So when you explain that to your normy person, then you might say, well that's because morality, or that's because rights violations are a subset of morality. So that's kind of a first approximation about how you explain to people why everything that's not that's immoral should not be illegal. It's because a rights violation should be illegal, but that's only a subset of immorality. But when you put it that way, the assumption is that every rights violation is immoral although not everything that's immoral is a rights violation right. And my personal view that I've I've come to adopt over the years is that's that's actually slightly incorrect. In other words it it's incorrect to say that everything that's a rights violation is necessarily immoral. And the reason is because I view rights as a metanorm. This is the view as a human being, living in society, who wants to have a moral view of matters and the way human Society should operate, what law would I favor as a justified law? So I would say that we should have a law that says you can't steal from people. But what that means is that it's justified if the legal system uses force to stop crime, or to stop theft. It's justified. Which which means that if someone is caught being a thief or a rapist or a murderer and they're punished or dealt with in a certain way, that response by the legal system, or by the victim using the legal system as its proxy—you can't criticize that itself an immoral action; it's justified. So to my mind the ultimate purpose of law, and to think about this, is to think about what's justified. But it doesn't mean it doesn't mean that every rights violation is necessarily immoral. And again, it's because when you classify the legal system's response to a crime as justified, what you're saying is, it doesn't violate the aggressor's rights if force is used against him. But it doesn't necessarily imply that what he did was immoral. So this is why my view is that we have to view rights violations not as a proper subset of immorality, but as its own set which is mostly overlapping with immorality. So I would say that 99% of all rights violations are actually immoral, just like I would say that it's immoral to be a dishonest person in general but I don't think that it's logically necessarily true. And the reason is because the purpose of morality is to guide man's conduct in his everyday affairs, but the purpose of political ethics is to tell us which legal system is justified. So that morm is aimed at determining which laws are just; it's not aimed at telling us how we should act on a day-to-day basis. So given a legal system,  which I think is a just legal system—let's say we have a legal system where which outlaws murder and theft and extortion and rape and robbery and all this kind of stuff—that doesn't necessarily mean that I am always immoral if I choose to violate someone's rights in that system. It probably is in most cases,  but I'm not sure it's logically the same thing. [Then the example of someone in the woods breaking into a cabin to save their baby's life.] Shownotes (Grok) Show Notes: Stephan Kinsella & Nicholas Sinard on Co-Ownership, Property Rights, and Related Issues (Full conversation – Parts 1 & 2 combined) Opening Summary and Defense of Co-Ownership (0:00–4:41) Kinsella summarizes his long-standing view: co-ownership of scarce resources is unproblematic and historically unquestioned. Property rights exist to avoid interpersonal conflict over rivalrous (scarce) resources; contracts can split the “bundle of rights” in ways that still prevent conflict. Examples: state-owned property is actually co-owned by taxpayers/victims; homesteading-by-proxy creates temporary co-ownership; wills can be structured to achieve the same result even if death technically ends the testator's existence. Hoppe, Easements, and Collective Homesteading (4:41–8:22) Sinard: critics are taking Hoppe too literally when he says “only one owner per resource.” Hoppe himself recognizes easements, servitudes, and even collective homesteading (e.g., a commonly used village path). Practical co-ownership (spouses, roommates, joint heirs) already works via contracts and arbitration/divorce/sale when conflict arises. Meta-Norms and the Duty to Avoid Conflict (8:22–9:53) Even when no perfect rule exists, parties still have a background duty to seek peaceful dispute resolution rather than immediate violence. Property rights are not self-enforcing; they presuppose arbitration. Compossibility and the Essentialist Project (9:53–13:18) Sinard is working on an “essentialist” test: a proposed property-rights rule is only justifiable if it is logically compossible (no built-in conflicts). Kinsella links this to Hoppe's and Hülsmann's emphasis on compossible rights. Do Critics Really Oppose the Substance or Just the Word? (11:43–17:50) Kinsella suspects the dispute is merely semantic: critics accept contractual arrangements that achieve the same result as co-ownership but refuse the label. Sinard thinks critics mistakenly believe Kinsella derives property rights from contract (rather than contract from prior property rights). Tangent on contractarianism, mutual recognition, and argumentation ethics: mutual respect for rights is a proto-agreement, but contracts remain downstream of property. Consent, Revocability, and the Guest/Tenant Distinction (31:42–36:04) Bare consent (dinner guest, kissing) is revocable at will.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 478. Related: The Universal Principles of Liberty Announcing the Universal Principles of Liberty Fusillo on the Universal Principles of Liberty and Liberland KOL473 | The Universal Principles of Liberty, with Mark Maresca of The White Pillbox Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection, in Legal Foundations of a Free Society A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability and Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith, in Legal Foundations of a Free Society Disentangling Legal and Economic Concepts Dualism, Monism, Scientism, Causality, Teleology: Hoppe, Mises, Rothbard Libertarian Answer Man: Mind-Body Dualism, Self-Ownership, and Property Rights God as Slaveowner; Conversations with Murphy Mises on God KOL293 | Faith and Free Will, with Steve Mendelsohn  This is my appearance on Adam Haman's podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack), Kinsella's Legal Treatise On Universal Principles Of Liberty | Hn 185 (recorded Nov. 9,  2025; released Dec. 9, 2025). https://youtu.be/tc-hdB_yiS4?si=icPwq5mSS6nDU8LP Adam's show notes: On this episode of Haman Nature, libertarian poker pro Adam Haman is joined once again by libertarian legal theorist (and patent attorney who despises IP) Stephan Kinsella about his new creation: The Universal Principles of Liberty. (apologies, folks - my mic was a bit wonky on this one) 00:00 -- Intro. Welcoming author, attorney, world-traveler, and all-around great guy Stephan Kinsella! 02:54 -- What are "The Universal Principles of Liberty", and why should we be excited by it? 11:40 -- What is a "person"? What is "property"? Why are these things so important to think about clearly? 34:24 -- This simple and elegant document can handle deep and complex issues. 47:54 -- When (and why) does selling not imply ownership, and vice-versa? What does "dualism" have to do with this? What's the confusion between economics and law when dealing with this stuff? 56:53 -- Outro. Go comment on TUPoL! (linked below) Thanks for watching Haman Nature!  Shownotes, links, grok summary, and transcript below. Shownotes (Grok) Haman Nature Podcast – Show Notes Guest: Stephan Kinsella Host: Adam Haman Episode Topic: The Universal Principles of Liberty – A New Foundation for Free Societies   0:00 – Opening Banter & Liberland Passport Shenanigans Stephan shows up in casual clothes after taking a suit-and-tie selfie… for his upcoming Liberland passport photo   Only a libertarian would put on half a suit to pretend to be a government just to get a passport   Stephan is heading to Prague in December 2025 for the signing and announcement of the Liberland Constitution 1:04 – Who is Stephan Kinsella? Patent attorney turned leading anarchist legal theorist   Author of Against Intellectual Property and Legal Foundations of a Free Society   Recent Vegas trip with Adam: helicopter into the Grand Canyon, Venetian St. Mark's Square (tacky but awesome) 2:59 – Introducing “The Universal Principles of Liberty” (TUPoL) A one-page, elegant, civil-law-style statement of libertarian metanorms   Not a constitution, not a detailed legal code – a foundational layer that private legal systems can build upon   Voluntary opt-in document: you must explicitly sign on to be bound   Purpose: foster conflict-free interaction through reason, experience, and ethics – no state decree, no majority vote 5:09 – Origin Story: From Liberland → Bir Tawil → Universal Principles Stephan helped draft Liberland's early (still statist) constitution but was uneasy as an anarchist   Long history of libertarian startup-country projects (Seasteading, Atlantis, Prospera, etc.)   Max (FreeMax) approached Stephan about Bir Tawil (unclaimed land between Egypt & Sudan) and wanted principles instead of a state   Co-drafters: Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Alessandro Fusillo, David Dürr, Pat Tinsley 9:16 – Why This Document Now? Refinement of 30+ years of libertarian legal theory (Rothbard, Hoppe, Kinsella)   Earlier concise restatement now in the Libertarian Party platform (plank 2.1/2.2)   Goal: a short, uncontroversial, legally precise statement that any free society can point to 11:40 – Key Features & Definitions “Person” = any sentient being capable of moral agency (includes possible AGI/aliens, excludes animals)   Rights are exclusively property rights in scarce physical resources (no “right to life,” no IP)   Self-ownership is primary and inalienable (the Walter Block voluntary-slavery debate settled against alienability)   Body rights can only be forfeited by committing aggression (proportional punishment/restoration justified) 20:01 – Freedom is a Consequence, Not a Primary Right No need for enumerated positive rights (speech, religion, warm baths)   All legitimate freedoms flow from property rights in body and external resources 23:25 – Why Self-Ownership is Inalienable (and Walter Block is wrong) Body ownership arises from direct embodiment/control, not homesteading   You can abandon or sell homesteaded external resources; you cannot abandon “you”   Contracts are title transfers, not enforceable promises 29:12 – Punishment, Outlaws, and Estoppel Aggressors implicitly consent to proportional defensive/enforcement force   No need for prior signed contract with an outlaw – committing aggression waives the right to complain 34:26 – Weapons of Mass Destruction Clause (Article 8) Indiscriminate devices that cannot be aimed solely at aggressors are legitimately restrictable   Practical insurance/neighborhood covenants would handle most cases anyway 37:39 – Evidentiary Standards Borrowed from Tradition Severe remedies require heightened standards (e.g., beyond reasonable doubt, jury nullification rights)   Roman & common law are largely libertarian and will serve as starting points 40:41 – Select Unjust Laws & Aspirational Closing Explicitly lists taxation, IP, conscription, etc. as unjust   Beautiful final paragraph: “We bow to no state… no power on earth will stop us” (mostly written by Max) 42:47 – Why Law Must Develop Organically (Quote from Stephan's blog) Detailed armchair legal codes are premature and counterproductive   Law evolves case-by-case through real disputes, custom, and decentralized courts 47:58 – Deep Dive: “Selling Does Not Imply Ownership” & Misesian Dualism Crucial distinction between possession/control (causal/economic) and legal ownership (normative)   Robinson Crusoe has possession but no ownership   Labor/services are not ownable – employment contracts are conditional title transfers of money, not sales of “labor”   Confusing the two realms leads to the fallacious justification for intellectual property 1:06:20 – Free Will, Compatibilism, and Scientism In the causal realm there is no free will (no downward causation)   In the teleological realm of human action we unavoidably treat people as purposeful choosers   Stephan's “Misesian compatibilism” – both views are correct in their respective domains 1:16:53 – Closing & Future Plans Stephan will push to have TUPoL incorporated into the final Liberland Constitution (to the extent compatible)   Next big project: new comprehensive book on IP/copyright titled Copy This Book   Where to find everything: stephankinsella.com | Universal Principles of Liberty poster & text freely available Links   The Universal Principles of Liberty full text & poster: https://www.stephankinsella.com/principles/   Stephan's blog announcement: https://stephankinsella.com/2025/08/announcing-the-universal-principles-of-liberty/   Adam's original Substack post: https://hamannature.substack.com/p/kinsellas-legal-treatise-on-universal Enjoy the episode and go read (and sign!) the Universal Principles of Liberty! Transcript (Youtube/Grok): Haman Nature Interview: Stephan Kinsella on The Universal Principles of Liberty (Corrected transcript – spelling, punctuation, minor grammar, no paraphrasing. Long speaking blocks broken into ≤10-sentence paragraphs. Topical headers with timestamps added.) Opening Banter & Liberland Passport Story [0:00] Adam Haman: Intro. Welcoming author, attorney, world-traveler, and all-around great guy Stephan Kinsella! [0:00] Stephan Kinsella: You forgot your cue. I told you to ask me about my adventure this morning and putting on a suit and tie. [0:06] Adam: I thought that was off because you, sir, are not wearing a suit and tie anymore. [0:11] Stephan: I know. So it wasn't for you. You know how people—well, I don't want to mess my shirt up. I can reuse it now. You know how it's probably common knowledge now that ever since the Zoom era, a lot of people were telecommuting and so they would put on a shirt and tie but they were wearing shorts underneath, right? [0:37] Stephan: So I did something this morning and I was thinking only a libertarian would do this. I put on a suit and tie to take a photo of myself because I need a passport photo. But I don't need a regular passport photo. I need a photo that I can use for my Liberland passport because I'm going to Prague in December for the signing and announcement of the Liberland Constitution. Formal Introduction [1:04] Adam: Hello and welcome to Haman Nature. I am Adam Haman and that fine fellow fiddling with his pipe on a Houston morning is one Stephan Kinsella. How you doing, sir? [1:15] Stephan: I'm in fine fettle. You're fine fettle and a fine fellow. [1:22] Adam: For those of you who just woke up underneath a rock, Stephan Kinsella is a legal theorist, one of our best, and also the author of this highly influential book here,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 477. As mentioned in the previous episode (KOL476), Alex Anarcho has begun a narration of Against Intellectual Property, with interspersed commentary. He has so far narrated the first two sections the first of which, "Summary of IP Law," was in KOL476. This episode is Part 2, "Libertarian Perspectives on IP." I have posted a Youtube video containing both parts. Alex assures me that narrations with commentary of the remainder of the book are forthcoming. These can be found in his Against Intellectual Property series, which includes Part I, What is intellectual property? (KOL476) and Part 2, Libertarian Perspectives on IP (this episode). KOL476 contains the transcript for both parts. Previous audio versions of AIP include KOL008 | Against Intellectual Property (audiobook) and KOL373 | Against Intellectual Property (audiobook #2). See other audio versions of my work here. Related: “The Problem with Intellectual Property" A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property https://youtu.be/KmZ85ebk2SI  

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 476. Alex Anarcho has begun a narration of Against Intellectual Property, with interspersed commentary. (I appeared on his podcast previously; see KOL444 | Property Rights, Bitcoin, Ideas & Fungibility, with AlexAnarcho.) He has so far narrated the first two sections, the first of which, "Summary of IP Law," is in this episode. "Libertarian Perspectives on IP" follows in the next episode (KOKL477). I have posted a Youtube video containing both parts. Alex assures me that narrations with commentary of the remainder of the book are forthcoming. These can be found in his Against Intellectual Property series, which includes Part I, What is intellectual property? (this episode), and Part 2, Libertarian Perspectives on IP (KOKL477). Previous audio versions of AIP include KOL008 | Against Intellectual Property (audiobook) and KOL373 | Against Intellectual Property (audiobook #2). See other audio versions of my work here. Related: “The Problem with Intellectual Property" A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property Transcript, with added comments and links, below. https://youtu.be/KmZ85ebk2SI Transcript (All endnotes and comments in [brackets] are my annotations. —SK) 0:04 Alex Anarcho: Hey, thanks for tuning in to the Alex Anarco podcast. In this episode and the episodes to follow, I will return to my roots, namely reading books from great libertarian philosophers. When I started the podcast, I was reading The Anatomy of the State by Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard, What Has Government Done to Our Money by Rothbard, and The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand. Then I did a bunch of episodes that were not based on books, but where I was giving my thoughts and having conversations with other like-minded people. But now I think it's time to read yet another book. This book has been very influential in my own thinking about the libertarian philosophy and I think it's a must-read for all who call themselves libertarian or anarchists because it really covers an issue that has not gotten so much attention in the libertarian canon. There is a lot of thought that was spent on political philosophy such as The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard. But this book is kind of a hidden gem. So if you have never heard of it, I think it's a great read or for you I guess a great listen and something you definitely should be aware of. The arguments presented are very strong and they need to be grappled with. For me personally, it was very influential, like I said, and it has significantly changed how I view the world, most specifically the world of software. For anybody who has been aware of my podcast, I'm a very big fan of the cypherpunk ethos that aims to change the world through creating technologies that are unstoppable that allow individuals who use them to become sovereign. And I think yeah the backbone for all of this philosophy is also somewhat rooted in the arguments that are put forth in this book or at least they are heavily backed up by the arguments. So what is the book? The book is called Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella as you may have gleaned from the title of this podcast. And Stephan has actually been on this podcast before. I will link in the show notes the episode I did with him. And for a long time I've wanted to read this book to my audience and discuss the ideas put forth in it. So far I didn't get around to it and now I think is better than never. So we will read Against Intellectual Property. We will discuss the ideas and as with any of my episodes, if you want to chime into the conversation, you can go to my website, alexanarcho.live or if you want to reward me for making this content, you can go to xmrchat.com/alexanarco and leave a little tip with Monero XMR. It would be greatly appreciated. Also, if you helped fund this episode, then you are eligible to join a secret Discord, a secret Matrix society on the Matrix messenger. For this you have to go to my website and claim your transaction. And when claiming the transaction in the form, you simply provide your Matrix username and this will yeah the bot will send you an invite then to the group. Let's dive in Against Intellectual Property. AIP: Property rights: tangible and intangible. All libertarians favor property rights and agree that property rights include rights in tangible resources. These resources include immovable immovables (realty) such as land and houses, and movables such as chairs, clubs, cars, and clocks. 4:18 Alex Anarcho: So I think this is a brilliant distinction and the word tangible may be somewhat foreign but it means exactly what was described here. Basically in my mind it's things that you can touch. So I can walk up to a house and touch the house. I can walk up to a chair and touch the chair. And so things that exist in the real world. (( Note from Kinsella: See “Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward,” n.30: "In AIP I sometimes used the term “tangible” to indicate scarce resources that can be subject to property rights. (I've also sometimes used the term corporeal, a civil-law term.) Hardy Bouillon argues that it might be more precise to focus on the difference between material vs. non-material goods, rather than tangible vs. non-tangible goods, as the touchstone of things subject to property rights." )) And for those things, libertarian philosophy puts forth the idea of property rights that these tangible commodities, tangible goods can have a rightful owner. And yeah, I think this is something that we'll come back to every now and again that this is pretty a clear-cut issue and there is not a lot of discussion on this. Basically, from John Locke on the idea of being able to homestead land is very deeply interwoven in libertarian philosophy. AIP: Further, all libertarians support rights in one's own body. Such rights may be called self-ownership as long as one keeps in mind that there is dispute about whether such body-ownership is alienable in the same way that rights in homesteadable external objects are alienable. 5:48 Alex Anarcho: So alienable means you can kind of outsource them or give them away to somebody else. And I think what he's referring to here is the discussion that for example Walter Block and Murray Rothbard have had—I mean Rothbard has passed away—but the idea can you sell yourself into slavery and for this I will actually read the footnote which reads: AIP: Debate over this issue manifests itself in differences over the issue of inalienability and with respect to the law of contract, i.e., can we sell or alienate our bodies in the same manner that we can alienate title to homesteaded property? For arguments against body inalienability, see Stephan Kinsella, “A Theory of Contracts: Binding Promises, Title Transfers, and Inalienability.” So for example, as I understand it, Rothbard says that you cannot sell yourself into slavery. Like your will is inalienable and therefore you cannot like in perpetuity sell your will to your own body. And Walter Block is of a different opinion as I understand it and say well yes you can do that. (( A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, in  Legal Foundations of a Free Society [LFFS]; KOL442 | Together Strong Debate vs. Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery (Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity). )) So there is some dispute in that regard but I guess the common ground is that we do agree that we own our own body. (( See How We Come To Own Ourselves, in LFFS. )) Yeah. So this is the most immediate thing that we have in the world. If we think back to in The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard explains the scenario of Robinson Crusoe being stranded on his deserted island and the immediate reality he's faced with is the possession and property of his own body that like he can control his own body and he kind of also has to sustain his body in order to keep on living. AIP: In any event, libertarians universally hold that all tangible scarce resources—whether homesteadable or created, immovable or movable, or our very bodies—are subject to rightful control (or ownership) by specified individuals. 8:29 Alex Anarcho: Yeah. So, we'll not get lost in the discussion of can you sell yourself into slavery for this episode, but we'll just surf on the wave of agreement in libertarian circles that yes you can have these property rights in tangible scarce resources. And I think with texts like these is really really important to measure every word. So tangible means things you can touch and scarce means that there is a limited amount of them. (( But see, on scarcity meaning either "lack of abundance," on the one hand, or "not superabundant," on the other, On Property Rights in Superabundant Bananas and Property Rights as Normative Support for Possession; “Good Ideas is Pretty Scarce”; KOL337 | Join the Wasabikas Ep. 15.0: You Don't Own Bitcoin—Property Rights, Praxeology and the Foundations of Private Law, with Max Hillebrand; KOL176 | “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics: Lecture 5: Property, Scarcity and Ideas; Examining Rights-Based Arguments for IP” (Mises Academy, 2011); Objectivists Hsieh and Perkins on IP and Pirating Music; “On Conflictability and Conflictable Resources.” )) And the whole idea of property rights is because of the scarcity aspect. If things were abundant and you could have like press a magic button and things would just appear out of thin air, property rights wouldn't really make a whole lot of sense. The purpose of property rights is to reduce conflict that we can have over these scarce resources. Namely, well, can I sleep in this particular bed or is that your bed to sleep in? So,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 475. This is my guest lecture for Saifedean Ammous's course Principles of Austrian Economics II | ECON104 (recorded May 7, 2020, I believe), also now on Saylor Academy. Transcript and summary and other notes below. KOL441 | The Bitcoin Standard Podcast with Saifedean Ammous: Legal Foundations of a Free Society, Property Rights, Intellectual Property KOL314 | Patents vs. Bitcoin: The Bitcoin Standard Podcast (Saifedean Ammous) https://youtu.be/02wY_qL0qRU?si=HU40GGg8xu6Wfn3U GROK SUMMARY Summary of Economics 12 Seminar: Intellectual Property Discussion with Stephan Kinsella Introduction to Intellectual Property and Scarcity Timestamp: 0:01 In the ninth discussion seminar of Economics 12, Principles of Economics 2, host Saifedean Ammous introduces guest discussant Stephan Kinsella, who has written extensively on intellectual property (IP) and its justifications. The lecture focuses on Kinsella's paper, which explores the legitimacy of property rights and why IP lacks a coherent basis. Ammous highlights the core issue of scarcity: property rights manage scarce resources, but ideas, being non-scarce, cannot be owned without controlling others' bodies or property, violating individual rights. This is described as a “kill shot” to IP arguments, though other critiques are also explored. Utilitarian and Natural Rights Arguments Against IP Timestamp: 3:07 Stephan Kinsella elaborates on the incoherence of IP, arguing that information is a characteristic of owned resources, not property itself. Claiming ownership over ideas, like owning the “redness” of a ball, would absurdly grant control over others' property. He traces IP's origins to Locke's labor theory of property, which confuses action with ownership, leading to flawed justifications by Ayn Rand and others. Kinsella critiques the utilitarian argument that IP stimulates innovation, noting the U.S. Constitution's temporary monopoly grants were based on unproven assumptions. He argues that 200 years of data fail to show IP's net benefit, with studies suggesting it distorts or depresses innovation. Empirical Weaknesses and Market Failures Timestamp: 7:44 Kinsella challenges the empirical case for IP, pointing out that proponents assume a market failure in innovation without government intervention. However, studies are inconclusive or show patents hinder innovation, costing billions annually in the U.S. alone. He criticizes reports like the Commerce Department's, which claim IP-intensive industries drive GDP, for mistaking correlation with causation. Ammous adds that academic theoretical models often support IP without empirical backing, relying on simulated universes to justify claims of increased innovation, further highlighting the lack of real-world evidence. Alternative Business Models Without IP Timestamp: 19:13 Ammous argues that the assumption IP is essential for creators' income reflects limited imagination. Musicians, for instance, earn most of their income from concerts and sponsorships, not record sales, as seen with artists from local bands to superstars like Madonna. Platforms like SoundCloud and YouTube allow free music distribution, boosting popularity and concert attendance, as evidenced by Iron Maiden's use of BitTorrent data for tour planning. Authors can profit from physical books, courses, or speaking engagements. Without IP, lower legal costs would reduce prices, benefiting consumers and producers, with first-mover advantages and reputation sufficing for profitability. Trade Secrets and Regulatory Impacts Timestamp: 27:44 Kinsella discusses trade secrets as an alternative to patents, noting that patent law encourages disclosure over secrecy, undermining natural market advantages. The FDA's regulatory system exacerbates this by requiring public disclosure during drug approval, negating trade secret benefits and justifying patents. He argues that removing both systems would allow trade secre...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 474. “Where The Common Law Goes Wrong,” 2025 Annual Meeting, Property and Freedom Society, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 19, 2025). This will also be podcast later on the Property and Freedom Podcast. Below are my notes, Shownotes provided by Grok, and the transcript. This recording is from my iphone. Professional recording and video will be uploaded later. See also Sebastian Wang, "Stephan Kinsella on the Common Law: Lessons from Bodrum 2025," Libertarian Alliance [UK] Blog (Sep. 19, 2025). Grok Shownotes Show Notes: Stephan Kinsella's “Where the Common Law Goes Wrong” – Property and Freedom Society 2025 Annual Meeting Introduction and Context Stephan Kinsella delivered his talk, “Where the Common Law Goes Wrong,” at the Property and Freedom Society's 2025 Annual Meeting in Bodrum, Turkey, on September 21, 2025. Introduced by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who shared a brief anecdote about media bias in translating Donald Trump's interactions, Kinsella's presentation revisits themes from his earlier PFS talks in 2012 and 2021, focusing on the interplay between libertarian principles, Roman law, and the common law. Drawing on his recent work, including the Universal Principles of Liberty (co-authored with Alessandro Fusillo, David Dürr, FreeMax, and Patrick Tinsley, under Hoppe's guidance), Kinsella emphasizes the organic development of law and critiques the modern tendency to equate law with legislation. He humorously recounts preparing for the talk with his trainer, who mistook “common law” for “common law marriage,” highlighting the need to clarify legal concepts for a broader audience. Defining Law and Its Evolution Kinsella begins by distinguishing types of law: descriptive (e.g., laws of physics, economics) and normative (e.g., moral codes, legal systems). Legal laws, he argues, blend normative guidance with descriptive consequences, aiming to achieve justice through property rights. He contrasts the modern view of law as statutory decrees—illustrated by tax protesters demanding to “show me the law”—with its historical roots in decentralized systems like Roman law (500 BC–565 AD) and English common law (1066–present). These systems evolved organically through court decisions, with Roman law preserved in Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis and later rediscovered in Bologna around 1070, influencing European civil codes. Kinsella notes that post-1789 democratic shifts and bureaucratic growth led to an explosion of legislation, overshadowing these private law traditions. Roman Law vs. Common Law The talk explores why Anglo-American scholars, like Hayek and Leoni, often praise the common law's spontaneous order while overlooking Roman law's similar decentralized origins. Kinsella cites Hoppe's observation, from Democracy: The God That Failed, that the common law's non-codified nature may serve lawyers' interests by making it less accessible to laypeople, unlike Europe's clearer civil codes. He refutes the misconception that civil law systems inherently embody totalitarian principles (“all that is not permitted is forbidden”), attributing Europe's socialism to separate legislation, not civil codes. Both Roman and common law, Kinsella argues, offer valuable insights for libertarians, despite the former's neglect in free-market scholarship. Libertarian Law and Rationalism Critique Kinsella critiques the rationalistic tendency among libertarians to design top-down “libertarian law codes,” as exemplified by Rothbard's hope for a comprehensive code in The Ethics of Liberty. Such approaches, he argues, ignore context and the limits of deductive reasoning, echoing Hayek's critique of constructivist rationalism. Law, as a practical response to scarcity and conflict, developed through real-world judicial decisions over centuries. Kinsella suggests that libertarian law should evolve organically, using Roman and common law as starting points, guided by principles like non-aggression but subject to scrutiny f...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 473. https://youtu.be/soyywXASOh4?si=pHKdf6awiCXOqXGV From The White Pillbox, Stephan Kinsella's Universal Principles of Liberty. This is my discussion with Mark Maresca, of The White Pillbox, about The Universal Principles of Liberty. (Previous episode: Kinsella as “White Pill”: Maresca, “From the White-PillBox: Part 29. Achilles Heel edition 3”.) Mark's shownotes: Recently Stephan published an exciting document, the Universal Principles of Liberty: https://stephankinsella.com/principles/ Stephan provides some background that led to the Principles, historical context, use cases, and so much more. As always, Stephan demonstrates why he is a true human White Pill. He even challenged me to White Pill him, on my reasoning behind why true free societies may be coming sooner than we think. Some of his key publications: International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution (Oxford, 2020): http://www.kinsellalaw.com/iipr/ Against Intellectual Property (Mises Institute, 2001): http://c4sif.org/aip/ Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Papinian Press, 2023): https://stephankinsella.com/lffs/ Links to other topics we covered in this episode... The Law, by Frederic Bastiat: https://store.mises.org/The-Law-P408.... For a New Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard: https://store.mises.org/For-a-New-Lib... Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises: https://store.mises.org/Human-Action-... The Remnant, from Isaiah's Job, by Albert J. Nock: https://mises.org/mises-daily/isaiahs... The Property and Freedom Society: https://propertyandfreedom.org/ Grok shownotes and transcript below. Grok Shownotes Overview of the Discussion The episode of the White Pillbox features host Mark Maresca interviewing Stephan Kinsella, a prominent intellectual property attorney and libertarian writer from Houston. Recorded on September 06, 2025, the conversation delves into Kinsella's latest work, the "Universal Principles of Liberty," a document aimed at articulating a coherent framework for libertarian principles. This discussion provides listeners with an insightful exploration of libertarian thought, emphasizing practical applications and philosophical underpinnings in the context of transitioning to a freer society. Background on Universal Principles of Liberty Kinsella explains the genesis of the "Universal Principles of Liberty," highlighting his involvement in various libertarian projects, including attempts to draft constitutions for new nations like Liberland. He critiques the traditional concept of constitutions as state-authorizing documents, advocating instead for a statement of principles that avoids legitimizing governmental authority. The project evolved from his earlier work, such as the "Fundamental Principles of Justice," and was collaboratively refined with contributions from attorneys Pat Tinsley, Aleandro Fusillo, David Durr, and oversight from Hans-Hermann Hoppe, reflecting a broad consensus on core libertarian values. Core Libertarian Principles The core of the "Universal Principles of Liberty" rests on four key principles: self-ownership, original appropriation (homesteading), contract, and rectification. Kinsella argues these principles, derived from Roman and English common law, offer a decentralized, organic approach to law that contrasts with statutory legislation. He emphasizes that libertarianism, as a consistent application of these private law principles, rejects state-imposed exceptions like taxation or sovereign immunity, providing a foundation for a free society that can adapt through judicial interpretation rather than legislative fiat. Practical Applications and Flexibility Kinsella discusses the document's practical use as a "guard rail" for free territories or communities, such as Liberland or Prospera in Honduras, where it could guide development and judicial decisions without mandating a top-down structure. The principles are designed to be flexible,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 470. From my appearance on the Ayn Rand Fan Club with Scott Schiff and William. Their Shownotes: Patent attorney, Libertarian & Ayn Rand fan Stephan Kinsella joins William & Scott to talk about his history in the liberty world and his unique view that property rights should only pertain to physical things, and not to intellectual property. They also talk about Elon Musk opening his patents and the effects of IP law on AI. https://youtu.be/ax-QhyTGxw0?si=MyuQF4TfdeJQpQND Related: Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Anarchists and Others on Intellectual Property “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism” (Mises Daily 2010) Yet another Randian recants on IP An Objectivist Recants on IP Pro-IP “Anarchists” and anti-IP Patent Attorneys Patent Lawyers Who Oppose Patent Law “The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism” “The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism” The Problem with Intellectual Property A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP Grok shownotes: Episode Overview In this episode of the Ayn Rand Fan Club, hosts Scott Schiff and William Swig engage in a thought-provoking discussion with Stephan Kinsella, a retired patent attorney, author, and libertarian thinker with a deep background in Ayn Rand's Objectivism. The conversation delves into Kinsella's journey from Objectivism to anarcho-capitalism, his critical stance on intellectual property (IP), and his broader views on libertarian principles. Recorded on August 18, 2025, the episode explores the philosophical and practical implications of IP laws, their impact on innovation, and their compatibility with property rights, while also touching on contemporary libertarian movements. Stephan Kinsella's Background and Philosophical Evolution Kinsella shares his personal journey, starting with his introduction to Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead in high school, which sparked his interest in Objectivism. Initially a “hardcore Objectivist” for eight years, he later gravitated toward Austrian economics and anarcho-capitalism, influenced by thinkers like Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. As a patent attorney in Houston, Texas, Kinsella began questioning the validity of IP laws in the early 1990s, finding existing justifications—whether utilitarian or Objectivist—unsatisfactory. His career as a patent lawyer, paradoxically, coincided with his growing opposition to the patent and copyright system, which he argues violates fundamental property rights. Critique of Intellectual Property Kinsella's primary critique of IP centers on its violation of tangible property rights. He argues that patents and copyrights impose non-consensual restrictions, or “negative servitudes,” on how individuals can use their own property, such as a printing press or factory. Drawing from libertarian principles, he contends that property rights should stem from homesteading or contract, not state-granted monopolies. Kinsella rejects both utilitarian arguments (e.g., IP promotes innovation) and natural rights arguments (e.g., creators inherently own their ideas), asserting that there's no empirical evidence for underproduction of creative works without IP and that the concept of owning labor or ideas is flawed, rooted in a misinterpretation of John Locke's labor theory. Trademark, Defamation, and Reputation Rights The discussion extends to trademark and defamation laws, which Kinsella also opposes. He explains that trademark law, originally intended to prevent consumer fraud, has evolved into a “reputation right” that protects brands like Rolex or Chanel from dilution, even absent deception. He argues that fraud laws already suffice to address deceptive practices, rendering trademark law unnecessary. Similarly, Kinsella rejects defamation laws, asserting there's no property right in one's reputation, as it's merely others' opinions. He distinguishes incitement to violence as a separate issue,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 469. This is my appearance on Adam Haman's podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack), episode HN 149, “Free The DRUGS! Stephan KINSELLA Counters Economist Alex TABARROK On Price Controls | Hn 149” (recorded June 25,  2025). Tabarrok seems to be generally pro-free market and an Austrian or fellow traveler. However, although he sometimes criticizes existing IP law, he is not opposed to intellectual property (IP), unlike all the cool Austro-libertarians. (( The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism. )) And he often proposes changes to IP law—sometimes outrageously goofy ones, such as his truly insane idea of replacing the patent system with $3.5 trillion worth of taxpayer subsidies (if you take his logic for a taxpayer funded "medical innovation price fund" to its limit apply it to all forms of patented innovation and other forms of IP like copyright) (( $30 Billion Taxfunded Innovation Contracts: The “Progressive-Libertarian” Solution; Libertarian Favors $80 Billion Annual Tax-Funded “Medical Innovation Prize Fund; What's Worse: $80 Billion or $30 Million?. )) or based on simplistic assertions or confusions like the idea that we can empirically know that we are on the "wrong side" of the optimal patent term length on his ridiculous "Tabarrok Curve." (( Tabarrok: Patent Policy on the Back of a Napkin; The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright; Optimal Patent and Copyright Term Length. )) So even though he's not against IP and thus not a very good libertarian, and he's not a Misesian since he seems to think utility is cardinal, measurable, and knowable, (( "The Problem with Intellectual Property" (2025), Part III.B.2. )) and he's not an IP law expert either, he keeps trotting out proposals to “reform” IP, such as, I guess, banning free trade or urging that the US engage in IP imperialism to twist the arms of other countries like Australia (see below) to adopt the stronger US patent protections that Tabarrok seems to want to reform. (( See various posts on US style IP Imperialism. )) Read more at Tabarrok and Murphy: Why Are US Drug Prices So High? ... Shownotes, links, grok summary, and transcript below. https://youtu.be/gNRsjF3UXT4?si=2T9-4aE3cMPRoMD1 GROK SUMMARY: In the Haman Nature episode featuring patent attorney and libertarian legal theorist Stephan Kinsella, hosted by Adam Haman, the discussion centers on the high cost of prescription drugs in the United States and the misconceptions surrounding proposed solutions, including critiques of arguments made by economist Alex Tabarrok. Kinsella challenges the notion that former President Trump's executive order would effectively lower drug prices, arguing that the issue stems from a complex interplay of government regulations, subsidies, and intellectual property (IP) laws, particularly pharmaceutical patents. He disputes the idea that other countries "free ride" on a supposed U.S. "free market" system, emphasizing that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is far from a free market due to patent-driven monopolies that inflate prices and restrict competition. Kinsella's critique, informed by his extensive work on IP (e.g., his discussions in the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 469, and articles on c4sif.org), highlights how these monopolies distort market dynamics and prevent natural price equalization through arbitrage across borders. The conversation also addresses Tabarrok's arguments, as discussed in his interview with Bob Murphy, particularly the concept of the "Tabarrok Curve," which posits an optimal level of IP protection to maximize innovation. Kinsella rejects this, asserting that pharmaceutical patents are not the definitive case for IP necessity, as they often delay generic drugs, skew research toward profitable rather than essential medicines, and raise costs for consumers. He points to industries like fashion and software,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 467. I was asked one Juani (@witheredsummer), an Argentinian Voluntarist, on Twitter and then later via email, to review his draft article "Ideas Are Free: A Case Against Intellectual Property" (text below) (I note that perhaps ironically, this title is almost identical to one of my own previous publications/speeches, Ideas are Free: The Case Against Intellectual Property: or, How Libertarians Went Wrong). I told him it was too long for me to fisk, got Grok to analyze it (see below), and told him to read up on some of my work and review the analysis, so that we could have a more productive conversation about it, and which I could also at least record for my podcast. This is our discussion. In the end, he didn't really have many questions and I think he just wanted to vent about how bad IP is and express frustration at out outrageous and harmful it is. And suggest some ways to get through to people and propose reforms. Things I already knew and have been writing about for 30 years. He basically identifies many problems with and absurdities with IP law ... which he's right about and which I've mentioned ... and comes up with some proposals for IP reform that would reduce its harm. Again, which he's right about and which I and others have also proposed, but also which are unlikely to be adopted by those infested with the IP mind-virus. Not really sure what the point of this was, but here it is FWIW. https://youtu.be/AS-8mFZGfnI GROK SHOWNOTES: [0:00-15:00] In this episode of the Stephan Kinsella podcast (KOL467), host Stephan Kinsella engages with Juani from Argentina to discuss intellectual property (IP) and its implications, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence (AI). Juani, a programmer and self-described libertarian, shares his consequentialist critique of IP, influenced by Kinsella's work and his own essay, "Ideas for Free: A Case Against Intellectual Property." The conversation begins with Juani outlining his concerns about IP's practical harms, such as its impact on innovation and culture, and transitions into a discussion about AI. They explore how AI's reliance on vast datasets, often containing copyrighted material, raises legal questions about copying, authorship, and derivative works. Kinsella highlights the tension between copyright law and AI development, noting that current laws could stifle AI's potential by limiting data access or imposing costly licensing requirements. [15:01-1:37:33] The discussion deepens into specific examples of IP's negative effects, including cultural erasure through Disney's sanitized retellings of historical figures like Pocahontas and Mulan, and the economic burdens of pharmaceutical patents, which restrict access to life-saving drugs in poorer nations. Juani argues that IP acts as a form of censorship and reinforces wealth disparities, citing cases like patent trolling and the high cost of educational materials in developing countries. Kinsella agrees, emphasizing that IP distorts markets and innovation, and suggests that copyright's harm to AI development may rival its threat to internet freedom. Toward the end, Juani proposes a reform to replace IP exclusivity with a decaying royalty system, which Kinsella views skeptically, arguing that entrenched IP proponents will resist any reduction in rights. The episode concludes with reflections on piracy, the success of platforms like Steam, and the cultural shift toward viewing copying as less harmful, signaling a potential change in public perception of IP.   Youtube Transcript and detailed Grok shownotes below. Related: KOL466 | On IP Reform and Improving IP law FDA and Patent Reform: A Modest Proposal “Absurd Arguments for IP” “The Patent, Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Horror Files” Boldrin & Levine on Covid-19, Vaccines, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and Patents Patents and Pharmaceuticals

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 466. https://youtu.be/JAwxQTrPDII Re .@NSKinsella has proposed a number of patent reforms if we decide as a society not to abolish the patent system. This is, in my view, a more plausible way forward (politically) instead of demanding the abolition of patents.https://t.co/q3a0U2HQJ6 In this annotated extract, I… https://t.co/Jm36N2kjxa pic.twitter.com/Fs1caiVven — Sanjeev Sabhlok (@sabhlok) June 4, 2025 Sabhlok's markup of my proposals: See How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law and “Reducing the Cost of IP Law,” Mises Daily (2010). See also Tabarrok's Launching the Innovation Renaissance: Statism, not renaissance How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law by Stephan Kinsella on February 1, 2011 [From my Webnote series] This is included as ch. 41 of Stephan Kinsella, ed., The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023). See also proposals for reform in “Reducing the Cost of IP Law”; also Do Business Without Intellectual Property (Liberty.me, 2014); KOL164 | Obama's Patent Reform: Improvement or Continuing Calamity?: Mises Academy (2011). And FDA and Patent Reform: A Modest Proposal *** From my Mises blog post a year ago: How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law Archived comments (below) January 13, 2010 by Stephan Kinsella As I note in my article “Radical Patent Reform Is Not on the Way,” Mises Daily (Oct. 1, 2009), there is a growing clamor for reform of patent (and copyright) law, due to the increasingly obvious injustices resulting from these intellectual property (IP) laws. However, the various recent proposals for reform merely tinker with details and leave the essential features of the patent system intact. Patent scope, terms, and penalties would still be essentially the same. In the second article of this two-part series, “Reducing the Cost of IP Law,” Mises Daily, published today, I propose various reforms to the existing patent system–short of abolition–that would significantly reduce the costs and harm imposed by the patent system while not appreciably, or as significantly, reducing the innovation incentives and other purported benefits of the patent system. I list these changes below in generally descending order of importance, without elaboration, as they are discussed further in “Reducing the Cost of IP Law”: Patent Law Reduce the Patent Term Remove Patent Injunctions/Provide Compulsory Royalties Add a Royalty Cap/Safe Harbor Reduce the Scope of Patentable Subject Matter Provide for Prior-Use and Independent-Inventor Defenses Instantly Publish All Patent Applications Eliminate Enhanced Damages Add a Working/Reduction to Practice Requirement1 Provide for Advisory Opinion Panels Losing Patentee Pays Expand Right to Seek Declaratory Judgments Exclude IP from Trade Negotiations [update: add a fair-use defense2 reinvogorate the reverse doctrine of equivalents defense ] Other Changes Increase the threshold for obtaining a patent Increase patent filing fees to make it more difficult to obtain a patent Make it easier to challenge a patent's validity at all stages Require patent applicants to specify exactly what part of their claimed invention is new and what part is “old” (e.g., by the use of European-style “characterized in that “claims) Require patent applicants to do a search and provide an analysis showing why their claimed invention is new and nonobvious (patent attorneys really hate this one) Limit the number of claims Limit the number of continuation applications Remove the presumption of validity that issued patents enjoy—e.g. a utility model or “petty patent” system, in which patent applications are examined only minimally and receive narrower protection; this type of IP right is already available in some countries) (( Reducing the Cost of IP Law; Tabarrok's Launching ...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 465. GROK SHOWNOTES: [0:00–9:16] In this engaging episode of the Kinsella on Liberty podcast, Stephan Kinsella and Sheldon Richman tackle the contentious issue of pharmaceutical price controls under Trump's executive order, questioning their equivalence to traditional price controls that distort markets. Kinsella, drawing on his extensive critique of intellectual property (Patents and Pharmaceuticals, 2023; Patents, Pharma, Government: The Unholy Alliance, 2024), argues that patents create artificial monopolies, so price controls countering these are not standard interventions but responses to government-granted privileges. Richman highlights FDA-imposed costs, which patents partially offset, though Kinsella counters that these costs are overstated, citing lower drug prices abroad (Drug Reimportation, 2009). They endorse reimportation as a market-based solution, referencing Connor O'Keefe's analysis (Mises: How Trump Can Lower Drug Prices Without Price Controls, 2025), but criticize Trump's coercive tactics as resembling a protection racket (Trump's Worst Idea: Pharmaceuticals, 2025) (0:02–6:00). The discussion also critiques antitrust laws and secondary regulations, with Richman warning against Kevin Carson's approach of layering controls atop privileges (Kevin Carson on Confiscating Property from the Rich, 2016) (6:00–9:16). [9:16–1:13:35] The conversation shifts to a robust defense of the corporate form, addressing left-libertarian criticisms of limited liability and shareholder responsibility. Kinsella, aligning with Robert Hessen's contractual view and his own writings (Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation, 2011; Left-Libertarians, Corporations, Expropriating Stakeholders, 2008), argues that limited liability is not a privilege but a logical outcome of action-based responsibility, where shareholders are not liable unless causally responsible for torts (Van Dun on Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement, 2009). Richman decries the pejorative use of “corporate” by figures like Roderick Long, rejecting claims that corporations inherently rely on state favoritism (Comment on Left-Libertarianism on Roderick Long's Sub-Ex Dep Post, 2009) (9:16–36:01). They explore thick libertarianism, agreeing that individualism connects to broader values but remains distinct, and critique Walter Block's evictionism on abortion, with Kinsella arguing fetuses are not trespassers due to maternal actions (Together Strong Debate with Walter Block, 2022) (36:01–1:13:35). A lighthearted discussion on pipe tobacco reflects their commitment to personal liberty, underscoring their broader libertarian principles (Wombatrons: Why I Am a Left-Libertarian, 2009). https://youtu.be/5YaTsoDH9Eg Grok detailed shownotes: Detailed Segment Summary for Show Notes Segment 1: Price Controls, Patents, and Reimportation (0:02–9:16) Description and Summary: Kinsella andMemphis-based Robert Hessen and Sheldon Richman discuss Trump's pharmaceutical price control executive order, questioning its implications. Kinsella, per his writings (Patents and Pharmaceuticals, 2023; Patents, Pharma, Government: The Unholy Alliance, 2024), argues that patents create monopoly prices, so price controls countering these aren't standard market distortions, as patents themselves are government-granted (IP vs. Antitrust, 2005). Richman notes FDA costs inflate drug prices, but Kinsella cites lower prices abroad to argue these costs are overstated (Drug Reimportation, 2009) (0:02–2:28). They advocate reimportation, citing Connor O'Keefe's market-based approach (Mises: How Trump Can Lower Drug Prices Without Price Controls, 2025), and criticize Trump's coercive tactics as a protection racket (Trump's Worst Idea: Pharmaceuticals, 2025) (2:28–6:00). The segment critiques antitrust laws and secondary regulations, with Richman comparing them to Kevin Carson's flawed approach (Kevin Carson on Confisca...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 464. I appeared on the new show Tyrant's Den a few days ago. It was released today (May 2, 2025) along with the other initial episodes. Chat GPT shownotes: In this engaging episode of The Tyrants' Den, host and guest delve into a wide-ranging discussion with Stephan Kinsella, a leading libertarian legal theorist and retired patent attorney. The conversation begins [0:01–7:20] with Kinsella's background in patent law, where he candidly reflects on his anti-IP stance even while working within the IP system. He outlines how his libertarian beliefs shaped his legal career, how he avoided ethically troubling work like aggressive patent litigation, and how he transitioned to full-time libertarian scholarship, including his influential work on intellectual property and legal theory. As the episode unfolds [7:20–59:45], Kinsella explores the philosophical foundations of law from Roman and common law to natural law, and discusses international law, war crimes, and higher-law principles that transcend statutory frameworks. He articulates his estoppel theory of rights, critiques legal positivism, and examines proportionality in justice. Later segments address libertarian perspectives on immigration policy, property rights, and the influence of Kant on modern libertarian thinkers like Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Kinsella closes by recommending his book Legal Foundations of a Free Society [59:00–59:45], which compiles decades of his work on law, rights, and liberty. Grow shownotes: [00:00–15:00] In this episode of the Tyrants Den podcast, recorded on February 24, 2025, host Tyrell (The Liberty Tyrant) interviews Stephan Kinsella, a prominent libertarian thinker and retired patent attorney, to discuss law, rights, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe's contributions to libertarian theory. Kinsella shares his unique perspective as an anti-intellectual property (IP) patent attorney, explaining how he practiced patent law for 30 years while advocating for the abolition of IP, viewing his role as akin to providing defensive tools for clients. He introduces Hoppe's argumentation ethics, which defends libertarian norms like self-ownership and the non-aggression principle by arguing that denying them creates a performative contradiction in discourse. [15:01–59:45] The conversation explores Hoppe's critique of the state as an aggressor and his vision for private, decentralized legal systems grounded in property rights. Kinsella discusses natural law, common law, and civil law, drawing on his experience in Louisiana's civil law system and his international law studies. He explains his estoppel theory of rights, inspired by Hoppe and common law, which posits that aggressors cannot object to defensive force due to their prior actions, provided responses are proportional. The episode concludes with a discussion on immigration, where Kinsella proposes an invitation-based system to balance liberty and cultural concerns, and a plug for his book, Legal Foundations of a Free Society. Transcript and detailed shownotes below. https://youtu.be/B00FziQs3BU?si=-VENJyK6ylvdB_XH   ChatGPT Detailed Shownotes Detailed Summary with Time-Stamped Segments (Shownotes Body) [0:01–7:20] | Kinsella's Legal Career and Anti-IP Perspective Kinsella introduces his background as a patent attorney and libertarian. He explains how, despite opposing intellectual property, he practiced IP law ethically by avoiding aggressive enforcement work. Notes how libertarian theory shaped both his legal and writing careers. [7:20–11:20] | Foundations of Legal Systems: Roman vs. Common Law Discusses the difference between civil (Roman-based) and common law traditions. Explains Louisiana's unique civil law system and its impact on his legal education. Outlines historical influences on modern legal systems, including international and merchant law.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 463. A followup discussion with André Simoni of Brazil about some questions he had about applying my/Rothbard's title-transfer. See also KOL457 | Sheldon Richman & IP; Andre from Brazil re Contract Theory, Student Loan Interest Payments, Bankruptcy, Vagueness, Usury. Grok Shownotes: 0:00–29:42] In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty podcast (KOL463), Stephan Kinsella engages in a follow-up discussion with André Simoni from Brazil, building on their prior conversation with Sheldon Richman (KOL457). The dialogue begins with André revisiting his concerns about usury, fractional-reserve banking, and the nature of loan contracts, proposing a libertarian limit on interest rates to prevent exploitative lending practices that could lead to effective enslavement. He argues that modern financial systems, including fractional-reserve banking and fiat currency, are interconnected mechanisms designed to promote unsustainable economic activity, drawing insights from Doug French's book Walk Away. Kinsella challenges André's framing, particularly his view of loan contracts as bilateral exchanges, asserting instead that they are unilateral title transfers under Rothbard's title-transfer theory of contract. The discussion delves into the impracticality of “smart contracts” and escrow-based performance bonds, highlighting the inherent uncertainties in contractual damages and future obligations. [29:43–1:39:34] The conversation shifts to a deeper exploration of risk, inalienability, and the moral hazards embedded in modern banking systems. André connects usury and fractional-reserve banking, arguing that banks exploit depositors and borrowers by offloading risk while profiting as intermediaries, creating a system akin to a Ponzi scheme propped up by state interventions like deposit insurance. Kinsella agrees that the current system is corrupt but emphasizes that in a free market with full disclosure, such practices would be unsustainable due to economic realities and the inability to insure against systemic risks. They discuss the legitimacy of loan contracts, with André expressing concern about contracts that shift excessive risk to borrowers, potentially violating inalienability principles. The episode concludes with a discussion on corporations and limited liability, with André suggesting that corporate structures exacerbate risk-shifting, while Kinsella defends the contractual basis of corporations, referencing his prior discussions with Jeff Barr (KOL414, KOL418). Links to further resources and a promise to continue the dialogue are provided.   Youtube Transcript and Detailed Grok Summary below. https://youtu.be/8AfTdeiDJD0 Links: Mercadente, The Illiberal Nature of Limited Liability: A Libertarian Critique Recent Grok conversation Libertarian Answer Man: Legal Entities and Corporations in a Free Society (Feb. 29, 2024) Libertarian Answer Man: Corporations, Trusts, HOAs, and Private Law Codes in a Private Law Society (Nov. 11, 2023) KOL414 | Corporations, Limited Liability, and the Title Transfer Theory of Contract, with Jeff Barr: Part I KOL418 | Corporations, Limited Liability, and the Title Transfer Theory of Contract, with Jeff Barr: Part II On Coinbase, Bitcoin, Fractional-Reserve Banking, and Irregular Deposits UK Proposal for Banking Reform: Fractional-Reserve Banking versus Deposits and Loans Musings on Fractional-Reserve Banking in a Bitcoin Age; Physicalist Shock Absorber Metaphors The Great Fractional Reserve/Freebanking Debate Jesús Huerta de Soto, Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles Stephan Kinsella, “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract,” Papinian Press Working Paper #1 (Sep. 7, 2024) Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation Doug French, Walk Away: The Rise and Fall of the Home-Ownership Myth My thoughts on bankruptcy and inalienability: see Areas that need development from libertarian thinker...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 462. I previously appeared on Joshua Smith's Break the Cycle, in July 2021 (KOL349 | CouchStreams Ep 58 on Break the Cycle with Joshua Smith). I had forgotten but we also did a short "CouchStreams After Hours" segment for subscribers which was, and still is, behind a paywall. We discussed various things—my scooter ride with Antony Sammeroff in Austin and travels with Sammeroff the previous months (see KOL330 | Lift Talks #2 With Kinsella & Sammeroff and KOL329 | Lift Talks #1 With Kinsella & Sammeroff), skiing accidents while skiing with Sammeroff, my joining the Libertarian Party, the Mises Caucus, loser brigade libertarians and the Hoppe photo with Michael Malice's helicopter gift (see below), when I was offered a job at Cato, when I was Disinvited From Cato, and so on. I had forgotten about this but stumbled across the file on my computer looking for something else, so decided to upload and podcast it. It's been long enough. Youtube transcript and Grok shownotes below. https://youtu.be/9IHdN-_arsg Paywalled version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW4qMNDBOtE   Facebook post about the helicopter. See also KOL244 | "YOUR WELCOME" with Michael Malice Ep. 001: Intellectual Property, Prostate Cancer Even my buddy Tucker didn't like it! (we've made up, no worries)   If you think political violence is hilarious, and post pics with plastic helicopters to show it, you might examine your conscience. — Jeffrey A Tucker (@jeffreyatucker) October 8, 2017 Hoppe Helicopter Controversy of 2017 - Stephan Kinsella responds: https://youtu.be/rqipQNFSOEQ?si=skq0FFFwt5xSwhry&t=1 Grok Summary Show Notes Summary Video: "Break The Cycle w/ Joshua Smith" (https://youtu.be/9IHdN-_arsg) Podcast Episode: "KOL462 | Couchstreams After Hours: Break The Cycle with Joshua Smith" (https://stephankinsella.com/as_paf_podcast/kol462-couchstreams-after-hours-break-cycle-joshua-smith/) Introduction and Libertarian Messaging (0:16 - 0:35) Discussion on using popular culture and trolling to spread libertarian ideas, emphasizing the goal of abolishing restrictive systems and breaking the cycle of statism. Scooter Adventures with Samuroff (1:04 - 3:13) Stephan recounts his spontaneous travels with Samuroff, including scooter rides in various cities and skiing in Telluride, which led to multiple shoulder injuries, humorously reflecting on his balance issues. Lift Talks and Skiing Experiences (3:29 - 4:49) Stephan and Samuroff recorded libertarian discussions on ski lifts in Colorado, dubbed "Lift Talks," published as podcasts; Joshua shares his snowboarding background and contrasts skiing experiences. Confronting the "Loser Brigade" and Hans-Hermann Hoppe (5:44 - 8:38) Stephan discusses a controversial photo with Hans-Hermann Hoppe holding a toy helicopter, sparking outrage among some libertarians; he dismisses virtue-signaling critics and defends his independence from think tanks. Mises Caucus and Libertarian Party Dynamics (9:42 - 18:36) Stephan and Joshua discuss their support for the Mises Caucus, aiming to steer the Libertarian Party toward radical, Rothbardian principles, and critique past candidates like Gary Johnson for lacking libertarian conviction. Cato Institute and Cancel Culture (19:34 - 21:12) Stephan shares a story of being disinvited from a Cato Institute IP debate, highlighting their reluctance to engage with Mises-aligned libertarians, and notes Cato's payment to reimburse his ticket as a form of preemptive cancellation. Closing and Contact Information (24:54 - 25:42) Stephan thanks Joshua for the interview, mentions joining his Patreon, and provides his website (stephankinsella.com) and social media handles (nskinsella) for further engagement. Transcript 0:16 much success turning people into 0:17

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 461. This is my appearance on Adam Haman's podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack), episode HN 119, “Stephan Kinsella Expounds on Philosophy And The Life Well Lived” (recorded Feb. 6, 2025—just before the Tom Woods cruise). We discussed philosophy and rights; my legal and libertarian careers (see Adopting Liberty: The Stephan Kinsella Story), and so on. Shownotes, links, grok summary, and transcript below. https://youtu.be/Ekg5slP8xAg?si=6fNlmaeR6V7OMVEW Adam's Shownotes Brilliant patent attorney, philosopher, legal theorist and libertarian anarchist Stephan Kinsella comes back on the show to take Adam to task for not defending atheism with enough vigor! 00:00 — Intro. Adam and Stephan reminisce about the Tom Woods Cruise! Also: proof that Stephan has a wife. 02:30 — Stephan's intellectual history about the "God issue". 11:30 — What is "sound epistemology" on this subject? What are good arguments for or against the existence of God? How should we think about the arguments of Thomas Aquinas et al? 19:55 — What is a good definition of "atheist"? How about "agnostic"? Plus more epistemology applied to metaphysical claims such as the existence of God. Also, our nature as humans is that we must act in the world even though we lack certainty and our knowledge is contextual. 32:38 — Adam asks Stephan: how would you react if you met a god-like being? Or Jesus Himself? A discussion of intellectual humility ensues. How does knowledge relate to human action? How do we acquire knowledge in the first place? Does this relate to AI? 47:09 — Adam admits he really doesn't know how anything works. Vinyl records are magic! 53:15 — Outro. It is agreed that Adam and Stephan are "the good atheists". Links George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God Barry Smith, In Defense of Extreme (Fallibilistic) Apriorism On Peter Janich, see Handwerk und Mundwerk: Über das Herstellen von Wissen, Protophysics of Time, What Is Information?, Euclid's Heritage: Is Space Three-Dimensional?; and references/discussion in Hoppe on Falsificationism, Empiricism, and Apriorism and Protophysics and Hoppe, My Discovery of Human Action and of Mises as a Philosopher Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method David Kelley, Foundations of Knowledge lectures ——, The Evidence of the Senses: A Realist Theory of Perception Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Biographical: Alan D. Bergman, Adopting Liberty: The Stephan Kinsella Story (2025); various biographical pieces on my publications page From the messing-with-Adam section: Grok discussion of use of optical metrology to play an LP by taking a photograph with a smartphone (estimate: 2033) Grok answer to this prompt: Explain to Adam, who thinks this is all magic, how an LP records and plays sounds, what transducers are; and how modulation works, using some examples of carrier waves such as EM radio waves with both AM and FM, and laser light signals transmitted down fiber optic cables and using both analog modulation such as CATV signals and digital modulation such as for internet data; and how modems work. Grok answer to this prompt: Now explain to Adam what "holes" are, in electric current, compared to electrons, what the mass and nature of holes are, and why the convention is for electric current, and electrons, to have a negative symbol. Also explain why electrical engineers use i instead of j for the imaginary number sqrt(-2). Also take a stab at explaining what imaginary numbers really are and how they are useful for things like freguency, and how they are not really "imaginary," and what "complex" numbers are; and how if you imagine a 2D plane with real numbers on the horizontal axis and imaginary numbers on the vertical or Y axis, and how you can picture 1xi as a 90° move from 1 on the real or X axis up to i on the imaginary or Y axis,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 460. I mean the title says it all. I kept getting interrupted by calls and deliveries. Oh well, what you gonna do. https://youtu.be/rnDe920Ce40 Links/Resources China and IP "Theft" Lacalle on China and IP “Theft” All-In Podcast Concern over China and IP “Theft” More of the “China is Stealing Our IP” nonsense Tweet by Gordon Chang “To Steal a Book is an Elegant Offense”—Chinese saying Libertarian and IP Answer Man: Does China have “more fierce” competition because of weaker IP law? Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Intellectual Property, the section “IP can't be socialistic, since the Soviet Union didn't recognize IP law” other posts under the tag China-IP-theft or IP Imperialism Update: Watching now. aaannnd it only took to 8 minutes in to mention China's "intellectual property theft". https://fedsoc.org/events/the-art-of-the-tariff-the-trump-administration-and-trade https://fedsoc.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_0QBJNVreRxGNoHAy0-rFoA#/registration IP vs. Plagiarism KOL207 | Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Are Not About Plagiarism, Theft, Fraud, or Contract “Types of Intellectual Property” The Mountain of IP Legislation General Case Against IP Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023), Part IV Against Intellectual Property You Can't Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) Kinsella, ed., The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023); See my post “Intellectual Properganda.” [↩] Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft” and “piracy” Related Videos/References Matt Walsh on IP: fisked in Musk and Dorsey: “delete all IP law”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQK21AW6hFQ&t=2033s China's regime has signaled it will expropriate the intellectual property of foreign companies. It's time for Prez Trump to protect American IP by using his authority to order U.S. companies to leave China. https://t.co/fa9qc1GNXc — Gordon G. Chang (@GordonGChang) March 30, 2025 “Let Him COOK!” 90-Day Tariffs Pause, Bill Maher's Trump Dinner + UFC Ovation [Piers Morgan, Gordon Chang, Cenk Uygur] https://youtu.be/wOWAewTXiEI?si=ozXh2mIprUGodnCr China's U.S. Intellectual Property Theft | CPAC | Gordon Chang: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZLy2KaNBBg

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 459. In response to lots of froth on Twitter related to Jack Dorsey's call to "delete all IP law," which was echoed by Elon Musk (Musk and Dorsey: “delete all IP law”) I decided to attempt to host an impromptu Twitter Spaces about this. After overcoming some technical glitches, here is the result (and thanks to @Brunopbch, @NotGovernor (Patrick Smith), and @TrueAmPatriot86 for assists). I proposed to the space: "Fielding Questions About Abolishing Intellectual Property, about IP, and About Libertarian Property Rights", and that's basically what we ended up talking about. The Twitter spaces can be viewed here; I have clipped off the first 8 minutes or so of setup talk for this podcast episode. Grok summaries and shownotes and Youtube Transcript below. https://t.co/IHeVhPhlbs I'm going to do an impromptu Twitter space in an hour (2pm CST) to field any questions about the Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property, in view of recent Twitter debates inspired by @jack Dorsey's and @elonmusk 's anti-IP comments,… — Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) April 14, 2025 https://youtu.be/01FdFoB9QHY GROK HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY: Below is a concise summary of the video "Stephan Kinsella on Intellectual Property (IP)" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01FdFoB9QHY), divided into six parts, based on the provided transcript and informed by the linked post (https://c4sif.org/2025/04/musk-dorsey-delete-all-ip-law/). The video features Stephan Kinsella discussing the case for abolishing IP laws in a Twitter Spaces session. Summary in Six Parts 1. Introduction and Context (0:01–1:03) Kinsella opens the session, discussing technical setup and his recent online IP debates, sparked by figures like Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey, who advocate abolishing IP laws. 2. Addressing IP Objections (1:09–5:16) Kinsella invites questions and tackles a common concern: IP protects small creators from big corporations. He argues this is misguided, noting Musk and Dorsey's history of non-aggressive patent use (e.g., Tesla, Twitter), and challenges the assumption that creators deserve government-enforced rights. 3. Misconceptions and Debate Challenges (5:23–12:28) He debunks myths equating copying to theft or plagiarism, criticizing IP as anti-competitive. Kinsella laments Twitter's combative nature, where users avoid substantive dialogue, and shares his desire for recorded discussions to foster learning, citing past successes. 4. China and IP's Economic Impact (12:34–15:22) Responding to a question, Kinsella argues China's growth shows benefits of lax IP, as adopting Western technology isn't theft but learning. He critiques U.S. politicians for using “IP theft” to justify tariffs and impose Western IP laws globally. 5. IP vs. Property Rights and Innovation (15:48–38:02) Kinsella disputes claims that IP is a natural right, explaining ownership comes from first use or contract, not creation. Using Bitcoin as an example, he emphasizes secrecy over legal enforcement. He argues IP reduces innovation by granting monopolies, slowing progress for patent holders and competitors alike. 6. Corporate Power and IP's Decline (38:09–1:15:40) He asserts IP fuels corporate giants (e.g., pharmaceuticals, Microsoft), not small creators, inflating prices and harming consumers. Kinsella notes copyright's decline due to piracy and predicts technology (e.g., 3D printing) may render patents obsolete. He concludes that abolishing IP requires embracing uncertainty for justice, despite public fear of change. This summary condenses the video's key points into six sections, aligning with the principled and pragmatic arguments Kinsella makes, while reflecting Musk and Dorsey's anti-IP stance from the linked post. Let me know if you need further refinement! GROK DETAILED SUMMARY: Below is a summary of the video "Stephan Kinsella on Intellectual Property (IP)" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01FdFoB9QHY),

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 458. The meat of this talk is only about 15 minutes, if you skip the first couple minutes of setup and the Q&A at the end. As mentioned in Speaking at APEE IP Panel in Guatemala, today (April 6, 2025) I spoke on a panel at the APEE 49th Meeting in Guatemala. The theme of this year's meeting was “The Economic History of State and Market Institutions,” April 6-8, 2025, Guatemala City, Guatemala (program). My panel was Panel 50. [1.E.06] “Intellectual Property: Old Problems and New Developments,” Monday, April 7, 2025, 3:50 pm-5:05 pm, Breakout06. Organizer: Monica Rio Nevado de Zelaya, Universidad Francisco Marroquín; Chair: Ramón Parellada, Universidad Francisco Marroquín. My full panel: Intellectual Property: A Randian Approach Warren Orbaugh, Universidad Francisco Marroquín Non-Traditional Trademarks Cristina Umaña, Universidad Francisco Marroquín Copyright versus Innovation in the Market for Recorded Music Julio Cole,Universidad Francisco Marroquín Patent and Copyright versus Innovation, Competition, and Property Rights N. Stephan Kinsella, Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom The immediately preceding panel was also on IP, which I attended: 36. [1.D.06] [General] Intellectual Property and Information Technology Monday | 2:30 pm-3:45 pm | 06. Cafetal II Organizer: Lawrence H. White, George Mason University Chair: Osmel Brito-Bigott, Datanalitica Technological Innovation and Service Business Models: Impacts on Private Property Institutions Osmel Brito-Bigott, Datanalitica; and Laura Marie Carrasco Vasquez, Pontificia Universidad Catolica Madre y Maestra Five Arguments for Intellectual Property Adam Moore, University of Washington Ideas Are Not Property: A Cross-Country Analysis of Institutions and Innovation Lucca Tanzillo Dos Santos, Florida Atlantic University I recorded my 15 minute presentation on my phone as well as the Q&A which mostly was aimed at me. One gentleman was not happy with my remarks and my Adam Moore, a panelist on the previous panel, and I had pretty opposite views, but many others liked my perspective and expressed this to me. I thoroughly enjoyed attending the APEE meeting, if only for one full day. https://youtu.be/B4TrV44K9b4 My notes are below, as well as the Youtube transcript. Patent and Copyright versus Innovation, Competition, and Property Rights Stephan Kinsella APEE 49th Meeting “The Economic History of State and Market Institutions” April 6-8, 2025, Guatemala City, Guatemala Panel 50. [1.E.06] “Intellectual Property: Old Problems and New Developments” Monday, April 7, 2025, 3:50 pm–5:05 pm, Breakout06. Based on my forthcoming book “Copy This Book: The Case for Abolishing Intellectual Property” and also “The Problem with Intellectual Property.” (( The latter will be in Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics, 2nd ed., Christoph Lütge & Marianne Thejls Ziegler, eds. (Springer, forthcoming 2025; Robert McGee, section ed.), update of “The Case Against Intellectual Property,” in Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics(Prof. Dr. Christoph Lütge, ed.; Springer, 2013) (chapter 68, in Part 18, “Property Rights: Material and Intellectual,” Robert McGee, section ed.). )) OK, let's see how much damage I can do in 15 minutes. I've been a patent attorney for over thirty years, and have prosecuted hundreds of high tech patents over that time. Intel, GE, UPS, Applied Optoelectronics, etc. Also about thirty years ago I concluded that all forms of intellectual property, or IP, ought to be abolished. I published many articles and even books on pure IP law—patents in the oil and gas industry, a trademark treatise—but at the same time wrote articles and books critical of IP law, including Against Intellectual Property. (( See Against Intellectual Property + Supplementary Material;  https://stephankinsella.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 457. I had been meaning to talk to my old friend Sheldon Richman, of the Libertarian Institute and TGIF column, about his own IP Odyssey, as he's always been great on this issue, (( My IP Odyssey; as quoted in “Your failed business model is not my problem”; Sheldon Richman, “Patent Nonsense," IP Debate Breaks Out at FEE. Others, e.g. Richman, The Articles of Confederation Versus the Constitution. )) and many others. At the same time I had been talking to André Simoni of Brazil about some questions he had about applying my/Rothbard's title-transfer contract theory to some questions he had about interest payments on student loans and other contracts, usury, and so on. I had thought of talking to André and Sheldon separately but decided to combine them, partly because I confused André's topic with a discussion I had also been having at the same time with Galambosian Brian Gladish about IP and Galambos. (( On Galambos, see the following. On Gladish, see the next note. Galambos and Other Nuts; The Galambosians strike back; “Around this time I met the Galambosian.”; Was Galambos an IP Thief?; Galambos the Crank; Shades of Galambos: Man tries to copyright his name; Rothbard and Galambosians. )) Libertopia, San Diego, Oct. 11, 2012: Anthony Gregory, Kinsella, Roderick Long, Sheldon Richman. See KOL238 | Libertopia 2012 IP Panel with Charles Johnson and Butler Shaffer; KOL237 | Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP—Part 2 (Libertopia 2012); KOL236 | Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Libertopia 2012) Sheldon and I talked first about IP and other topics, and then to André about contract theory, which Sheldon jumped in on anyway. (I may talk to Gladish later about Galambos and IP.) (( Gladish on Galambos at ASC; his comments at: Have You Changed Your Mind About Intellectual Property?; Galambos and Other Nuts; Mises on Intellectual Property; Why Objectivists Hate Anarchy (Hint: IP). )) We touched on a number of topics; see the summary of our discussion points by Grok, below. https://youtu.be/7vrIz8cv2Bw Of relevance: Stephan Kinsella, “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract,” Papinian Press Working Paper #1 (Sep. 7, 2024) Napolitano on Health-Care Reform and the Constitution: Is the Commerce Clause Really Limited?  and On Constitutional Sentimentalism (re Richman's point about the interstate commerce clause); see also his comments about federal tax power in Randy Barnett's “Federalism Amendment”–A Counterproposal; and related posts The Walmart Question, or, the Unsupported Assertions of Left-Libertarianism Ep. 382 Sheldon Richman Says Corporate Isn't a Dirty Word, Bob Murphy Show Four questions for “anti-capitalist” libertarians (Carpio)/Is Capitalism Something Good? (Richman) (2010) Left-Libertarians Admit Opposition to “Capitalism” is Substantive Capitalism, Socialism, and Libertarianism Should Libertarians Oppose “Capitalism”? Richman: Leave the “Left” Behind? Doug French, Walk Away: The Rise and Fall of the Home-Ownership Myth On libertarians who support voluntary slavery contracts: Block, Nozick, Casey: “A Tour Through Walter Block's Oeuvre”; KOL442 | Together Strong Debate vs. Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery (Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity) Concise Grok summary using the transcript (below): Here's a concise summary of the "Interview by Stephan Kinsella of Sheldon Richman and Andre from Brazil" in about 7 bullet points with time markers: 0:02 - 2:11: Stephan Kinsella introduces the podcast ("Kinsella on Liberty 457") to catch up with Sheldon Richman, executive editor of the Libertarian Institute, about his libertarian history and IP views. Sheldon writes "TGIF" weekly, rooted in his Freeman editorship (late 1990s-~2012-13). 2:19 - 9:14: Sheldon, officially retired but freelancing, rejects "left-libertarian" as a tribal label (early 2000s usage),

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 455. This is my appearance on Adam Haman's podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack), episode HN 109, "Stephan Kinsella Expounds on Philosophy And The Life Well Lived" (recorded Feb. 6, 2025—just before the Tom Woods cruise). We discussed philosophy and rights; my legal and libertarian careers (see Adopting Liberty: The Stephan Kinsella Story), and so on. Adam's Shownotes: Adam interviews patent attorney, philosopher, legal theorist and libertarian anarchist Stephan Kinsella about his life, his works, and what's next for the great man! 00:00 – Intro. 01:21 -- Does Stephan believe there is a level of technology required for "Ancapistan" to "work". 07:42 -- Adam has issues with the "is/ought" gap and asks Stephan for help on the matter. 25:42 -- The life and times of Stephan Kinsella. Great stuff! 50:55 -- Have questions about legal careers? Reach out to Stephan with questions! 52:02 -- Outro. Thank you for watching Haman Nature! https://youtu.be/ls82IXaxIW8?si=0RXbDIdp5FsiR3IW

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 454. I interviewed/had a discussion with my first IP law boss today, William C. (Bill) Norvell, Jr., about our time together when I was a new lawyer, his love of opera and so on, and his views on politics, war, Trump, and his views on the patent and IP system based on his years of experience as a patent prosecutor and patent ligitator. Bill, previously a parter with my former firm Jackson Walker, is now retired from Akerman. He was unable to connect via video on our Zoom call so his part is audio only. https://youtu.be/dfpn3KWnh2Q I've mentioned before there are very few anti-patent IP attorneys (see Pro-IP “Anarchists” and anti-IP Patent Attorneys). It turns out Bill, the guy who taught me patent law, is mostly of that sentiment. In response to my question about whether abolishing the patent system would mean the end of innovation and inventions, go to about 1:26:00, for this interchange: Kinsella: If the patent system disappeared tomorrow, do you think this this would mean that innovation would stop? Norvell: No, absolutely not. I think it's in the mind in the civilized man and woman mind to move forward and advance society, and we've done this since the caveman and the development of fire and the wheel and so forth. Absolutely not. I think the people that I have known and worked with in my career had brilliant minds;  they were creative people people, and they didn't they didn't really didn't give a damn about the patents. You know another point on this, and in direct answer to your question, is that patents are are applications a lot of times are approved to be pursued in corporations to be “warm fuzzies” for engineers and designers and so forth—"oh this man has three patents etc etc etc”—and there's there's not any care about about protectionism and going into the market and so forth. Mankind, in our entire society, the development of the Industrial Revolution, the evolution of that, is in the in the genes, so to speak, of humanity. I don't think it would affect it a bit. I am reminded of the words of an email to me from a patent attorney (Miracle–An Honest Patent Attorney!): Stephan, Your letter responding to Joe Hosteny's comments on Patent Trolls nicely states what I came to realize several years ago, namely, it is unclear that the U.S. Patent System, as currently implemented, necessarily benefits society as a whole. Certainly, it has benefited [Hostey] and his [partners] and several of their prominent clients, and has put Marshall, Texas on the map; but you really have to wonder if the “tax” placed on industry by the System (and its use of juries or lay judges to make the call on often highly complex technical issues that the parties' technical experts cannot agree on) is really worth it. Of course, anyone can point to a few start-up companies that, arguably, owe their successes to their patent portfolios; but over the last 35 years, I have observed what would appear to be an ever increasing number of meritless patents, issued by an understaffed and talent-challenged PTO examining group, being used to extract tribute from whole industries. I have had this discussion with a number of clients, including Asian clients, who have been forced to accept our Patent System and the “taxes” it imposes on them as the cost of doing business in the USA. I wish I had the “answer”. I don't. But going to real opposition proceedings, special patent courts with trained patent judges, “loser pays attorney fees” trials, retired engineers/scientists or other experienced engineers/scientists being used to examine applications in their fields of expertise by telecommuting from their homes or local offices throughout the Country, litigating patent attorneys providing regular lectures to the PTO examiners on problems encountered in patent infringement cases due to ineffective or careless examination of patent applications, and the appointment of actually qualified patent judges to...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 454. My recent appearance on The Rational Egoist. (Spotify; Youtube) Shownotes: Michael engages in a lively debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian theorist and anarcho-capitalist, as they explore key issues that divide Objectivists and libertarians. They discuss topics such as intellectual property, the role of the state, and foundational philosophical differences between the two schools of thought. https://youtu.be/NLIS5u5gmlw?si=uUTQLcO7zBtgL9q0 https://open.spotify.com/episode/7irB0NVxlqysC571CUmJGE?si=DKtqArPPTO-OW8P2o_9P6w&nd=1&dlsi=b76eff4560b3492d

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 454. My recent appearance on The Rational Egoist. (Spotify; Youtube) Shownotes: Michael engages in a lively debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian theorist and anarcho-capitalist, as they explore key issues that divide Objectivists and libertarians. They discuss topics such as intellectual property, the role of the state, and foundational philosophical differences between the two schools of thought. https://youtu.be/NLIS5u5gmlw?si=uUTQLcO7zBtgL9q0 https://open.spotify.com/episode/7irB0NVxlqysC571CUmJGE?si=DKtqArPPTO-OW8P2o_9P6w&nd=1&dlsi=b76eff4560b3492d

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 453. I was approached recently by my old friend, legal scholar and philosopher David Koepsell (a fellow opponent of IP who appeared on the John Stossel show with me a few years back), (( KOL308 | Stossel: It's My Idea (2015). )) as one of his students at Texas A&M, Eliot Kalinov, was interested in my and Hoppe's work on argumentation ethics and related issues. I offered to have a discussion with Eliot about these issues for his research and publication plans, which we did yesterday (Feb. 18, 2025). We recorded it for his own purposes, and I post it here, with his permission, for those who might find the topics discussed of interest. He is very bright and asked very intelligent questions. We discuss mainly the topics noted in the title of this episode. https://youtu.be/2vjVNAF0JUA

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 452. I was asked recently to guest lecture for a course taught to some mechanical engineering students at Colorado University Boulder (EMEN 4100: Engineering Economics) by the lecturer, David Assad. Assad covers some ethics related matters in the latter part of the course and asked me to talk generally about ethics and related matters. I discussed ethics, morality, politics, and science. I discussed ethics and its relationship to science and politics, and discussed about what science is, the types of sciences, ethics and ethical theories and the relationship to specialized ethics and morality in general, and its relationship to political ethics and political philosophy. I then discussed libertarianism in general, the nature and function of property rights, and then explained how the intellectual property issue can be addressed based on the libertarian and private law perspective. The references and notes I gave the class are embedded in the slides and reproduced below. https://youtu.be/M3SzBjb5zdA Slides here (ppt) and streamed below: Further reading/references IP Issues Part IV of Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023; https://stephankinsella.com/lffs/) You Can't Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) Other resources at https://c4sif.org/resources “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics” (Mises Academy, 2011; 6 lectures) concise argument against IP law: “Intellectual Property and Libertarianism,” KOL037 | Locke's Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory Intellectual Property Discussion with Mark Skousen “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright” and “Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright,” in Kinsella, You Can't Own Ideas on the assumption that any additional innovation and creative works incentivized by the IP system are worth more to society than those lost or suppressed due to these same laws: “There's No Such Thing as a Free Patent,” in  You Can't Own Ideas on the assumption that even if IP law gives rise to a net gain to society in terms of extra innovation, invention, and creative works, that this net gain is greater than other costs of the IP system: “There's No Such Thing as a Free Patent,” in You Can't Own Ideas Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes “Copyright is Unconstitutional” IP tutorials (on IP law, not policy) KOL409 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 1: Patent Law KOL411 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 2: Copyright Law KOL412 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 3: Trademark, Trade Secret, and Other Further Reading: Libertarianism Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023; https://stephankinsella.com/lffs/) Kinsella, The Greatest Libertarian Books, https://stephankinsella.com/lffs/ “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society” (Mises Academy, 2011; 6 lectures)  https://stephankinsella.com/kinsella-on-liberty-podcast/ Other Ludwig von Mises, Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method, A Theory of Socialism & Capitalism, Economics & Ethics of Private Property, The Great Fiction (https://hanshoppe.com/publications/) Randy E. Barnett, “Of Chickens and Eggs—The Compatibility of Moral Rights and Consequentialist Analyses,” Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 12 (1989): 611–36, and idem, “Introduction: Liberty vs. License,” in The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, 2d ed. (Oxford, 2014) Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value (to invasion of the physical integrity of their property boundaries)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 451. My recent appearance on The Rational Egoist. (Spotify) Shownotes: Debating the Nature of Rights with Stephan Kinsella In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz engages in a stimulating debate with libertarian writer and patent attorney Stephan Kinsella on the nature of rights. Drawing from his book Legal Foundations of a Free Society and his extensive work on legal and political theory, Kinsella offers his perspective on the origins, scope, and application of individual rights. Together, they examine differing philosophical interpretations and discuss how rights function in a free society. This thought-provoking conversation invites listeners to question and refine their understanding of one of the most fundamental concepts in political philosophy. https://youtu.be/_rvJ2H8r5Z8?si=890cUejq8lRh4ISj

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 450. My discussion/interview by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project as part of his “Together Strong” debate series. https://youtu.be/igflMs3VJPM?si=3MBYzu9cmeth4LlH  

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 449. My discussion/interview by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project as part of his “Together Strong” debate series. https://youtu.be/igflMs3VJPM?si=3MBYzu9cmeth4LlH

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 448. I was interviewed by Logan Hertz, of Hazeltine LLC, about attempts by the Nelson Nash Institute, they of the poorly-named "Infinite Banking" concept, to use trademark to bully competitors. I discuss the general problem with IP and then apply it to trademark, and provide suggestions as to more "ethical" ways of using trademark and IP in an IP-world. See also Logan's LinkedIn post. For more, see: Do Business Without Intellectual Property. https://youtu.be/EezJNq-FXQc?si=zPY2QdgLqeqqnf0-

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 448. This is my discussion with European patent attorney David Pearce, of the Tufty the Cat European IP blog (twitter). He and I were co-founders and members of the Advisory Council for the Open Crypto Alliance (2020–22). We discuss Craig Wright, nChain and bitcoin related patents, and so on (see video below). https://youtu.be/3B1R_aTdQ0I https://youtu.be/AJmPrbQ4NQU?si=yAGKMU590r6Vac4i

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 448. This is my discussion with European patent attorney David Pearce, of the Tufty the Cat European IP blog (twitter). He and I were co-founders and members of the Advisory Council for the Open Crypto Alliance (2020–22). We discuss Craig Wright, nChain and bitcoin related patents, and so on (see video below). https://youtu.be/3B1R_aTdQ0I https://youtu.be/AJmPrbQ4NQU?si=yAGKMU590r6Vac4i  

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 447. This is from the show "Axioms of Liberty," which has another episode about my IP writing. This time, it's a reading of "Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society."

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 446. This is from the show "Axioms of Liberty," which has another episode about my IP writing. This time, it's a reading of "Intellectual Property and Libertarianism."

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 445. The show "Axioms of Liberty" has an episode about my IP writing, including readings of three early pieces: First, one of my earliest writings, Stephan Kinsella, "Letter on Intellectual Property Rights," IOS Journal 5, no. 2 (June 1995), pp. 12-13, and followed by David Kelley's response. Next, “Is Intellectual Property Legitimate?”, first published in the Pennsylvania Bar Association Intellectual Property Newsletter 1 (Winter 1998): 3 and republished in the Federalist Society's Intellectual Property Practice Group Newsletter, vol. 3, Issue 3 (Winter 2000). And finally, "In Defense of Napster and Against the Second Homesteading Rule," LewRockwell.com (Sept. 4, 2000). I am not sure who this podcaster is, but he has my gratitude.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 444. I had forgotten about this conversation with "AlexAnarcho" back in May 2024. Here it is. Property rights, ideas & fungibility w/ Stephan Kinsella released 05/02/2024 Stephan Kinsella is a pioneer on the topic of intellectual property (IP). His arguments against IP also carry over to the cyberspace. Can you even "own" Bitcoin? After all, it is just a number on an elliptic curve...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 443. “Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach,” 2024 Annual Meeting, Property and Freedom Society, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 22, 2024). https://youtu.be/v9bDRDD2wWU Panel discussion: https://youtu.be/vFCZLT4tMY4 Notes below. Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach Stephan Kinsella Property and Freedom Society 2024 Annual Meeting Bodrum, Turkey September 19–24, 2024 Alright, let's have as much fun as we can with a topic like this. Contentious issues among libertarians: Anarchy vs. Minarchy Forms of state: monarchy vs. democracy Open borders vs. mass immigration Intellectual Property (we are winning this one) Israel vs. Gaza Ukraine vs. Russia Abortion: Pro-choice and Pro-Life I've changed my own mind a bit on this issue, after becoming a parent: from pro-choice. to more sympathetic to pro-life arguments, and to my current decentralist view Traditionally libertarians have tended to be pro-choice, including virtually all Objectivists, though there were always some minority pro-life voices (e.g. Doris Gordon of L4L). In recent years many seem to be more conservative, and more friendly to religion, and many more opposed to abortion than in the past. The LP removed its pro-choice plank in Reno in 2022 as part of the Mises Caucus takeover, the “Reno Reset,” arguing that the issue is not settled and each candidate should be able to adopt their own position on this issue. On some issues it seems possible to make progress. Many libertarians come from conservatism, or sometimes leftism, moving at first towards libertarian minarchism and then eventually to libertarian anarchism. I changed my mind on the IP issue and have managed to persuade a large number of people to adopt the anti-IP position. Views change on the issue of open borders and immigration and on particular issues like Israel vs. Gaza and Russia v. Ukraine. But it seems almost impossible for anyone to change someone else's mind on the abortion issue. The fact that this issue seems intractable, often rooted in deep lifestyle preferences or religious beliefs, is relevant, I think to how this issue is best solved in a political-legal sense. See Loren E. Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 91: “The intractability of the dispute … may itself be philosophically significant.” There are the well-known arguments Pro-choice There is the modern, or feminist, argument: it's my body. Of course the response is that there is a baby inside which complicates the matter For this reason even most pro-choice people do not not favor legality until birth Ayn Rand: “abortion is a moral right-which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved.” (“Of Living Death,” The Objectivist, Oct. 1968, 6) In Rand's view, opposition to abortion arises from a failure to grasp both the context of rights and the imposition that child-bearing places on women. As she put it: “A piece of protoplasm has no rights-and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.” So even Randians recognize difficulty in the later stages of pregnancy Pro-life Then there is the religious-based pro-life argument As this is religious, it is not exactly rational since people of different faiths can have different beliefs about souls, life, rights, and so on Libertarian abortion arguments Pro-Life Doris Gordon of Libertarians for Life: Pro-life she was a neo-Randian and had a secular argument against abortion. However it ultimately was a cheap semantic argument about what it means to be “human”. It's a simplistic argument, as all semantic arguments tend to be Doesn't account for rights of non-humans, e.g.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 443. “Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach,” 2024 Annual Meeting, Property and Freedom Society, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 22, 2024). Recorded with my phone. Better recording and video to come. Notes below. Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach Stephan Kinsella Property and Freedom Society 2024 Annual Meeting Bodrum, Turkey September 19–24, 2024 Alright, let's have as much fun as we can with a topic like this. Contentious issues among libertarians: Anarchy vs. Minarchy Forms of state: monarchy vs. democracy Open borders vs. mass immigration Intellectual Property (we are winning this one) Israel vs. Gaza Ukraine vs. Russia Abortion: Pro-choice and Pro-Life I've changed my own mind a bit on this issue, after becoming a parent: from pro-choice. to more sympathetic to pro-life arguments, and to my current decentralist view Traditionally libertarians have tended to be pro-choice, including virtually all Objectivists, though there were always some minority pro-life voices (e.g. Doris Gordon of L4L). In recent years many seem to be more conservative, and more friendly to religion, and many more opposed to abortion than in the past. The LP removed its pro-choice plank in Reno in 2022 as part of the Mises Caucus takeover, the “Reno Reset,” arguing that the issue is not settled and each candidate should be able to adopt their own position on this issue. On some issues it seems possible to make progress. Many libertarians come from conservatism, or sometimes leftism, moving at first towards libertarian minarchism and then eventually to libertarian anarchism. I changed my mind on the IP issue and have managed to persuade a large number of people to adopt the anti-IP position. Views change on the issue of open borders and immigration and on particular issues like Israel vs. Gaza and Russia v. Ukraine. But it seems almost impossible for anyone to change someone else's mind on the abortion issue. The fact that this issue seems intractable, often rooted in deep lifestyle preferences or religious beliefs, is relevant, I think to how this issue is best solved in a political-legal sense. See Loren E. Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 91: “The intractability of the dispute … may itself be philosophically significant.” There are the well-known arguments Pro-choice There is the modern, or feminist, argument: it's my body. Of course the response is that there is a baby inside which complicates the matter For this reason even most pro-choice people do not not favor legality until birth Ayn Rand: “abortion is a moral right-which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved.” (“Of Living Death,” The Objectivist, Oct. 1968, 6) In Rand's view, opposition to abortion arises from a failure to grasp both the context of rights and the imposition that child-bearing places on women. As she put it: “A piece of protoplasm has no rights-and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.” So even Randians recognize difficulty in the later stages of pregnancy Pro-life Then there is the religious-based pro-life argument As this is religious, it is not exactly rational since people of different faiths can have different beliefs about souls, life, rights, and so on Libertarian abortion arguments Pro-Life Doris Gordon of Libertarians for Life: Pro-life she was a neo-Randian and had a secular argument against abortion. However it ultimately was a cheap semantic argument about what it means to be “human”. It's a simplistic argument, as all semantic arguments tend to be Doesn't account for rights of non-humans, e.g.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 442. This is a debate between me and Walter Block about voluntary slavery contracts, hosted by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project as part of his "Together Strong" debate series. (See previous episode KOL426) Unedited transcript (from Youtube) below. https://youtu.be/x6ecMmBpGs8?si=veUW9EnXhwujEAo1 Notes: For further discussion of this topic, see: chapters 9–11, from Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2024; LFFS), namely "A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability," "Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith," and "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection" Re the "Zombicide" comments, see ch. 10, text at n.37 My paper, The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract (Papian Press Working Paper #1) KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery and Inalienability Other than Block and Nozick, Gerard Casey also seems to favor voluntary slavery: “Can You Own Yourself?“, Research Depository UCD Dublin (Dec. 2011) A few comments. African Slavery Walter favors voluntary slavery but not involuntary slavery;  this was one reason he sued the New York Times for defamation, since they claimed he supported slavery (if I recall correctly; 1, 2, 3). But how do we know that all the African slaves in antebellum America were involuntary slaves? Is it established that every African shipped to the US from Africa went against their will? What if they heard life was better in America, and they volunteered to go even knowing they would be enslaved. Wouldn't such a slavery contract be enforceable in Walter's view of slavery? Or take another example. Suppose Jones, owner of a plantation in Louisiana, owns a slave Toby, but he starts to feel bad about slavery and he manumits Toby, and tells him to leave. Toby says he has no money, no food, and he doesn't want to wander around in Louisiana where he might be attacked or enslaved again, and says he would prefer to just stay on Jones's plantation and work for him. Jones says well okay but only if you sell yourself to me and be my slave. So Toby sells himself to Jones. Wouldn't this be legitimate and enforceable, according to Walter's theory? Forced Sex with a Prostitute Walter says that if you sell yourself into slavery, then if you try to run away you are stealing the property of your owner. He is entitled to use force against you since you are disobeying him. Now around 52:13, Mathew asks Walter about my hypothetical about kissing a girl. I had explained that it's not assault/battery or aggression if you kiss a girl if she consents. If during dinner she promises to let you kiss her when you drop her off, and you do, it's also not consent, since her last communication set up a sort of standing presumption. As I write in ch. 9 of LFFS, Part III.C.1: If a girl promises a kiss at the end of the date and the boyfriend an hour later kisses her, she cannot claim it was nonconsensual. In effect, she communicated her consent, she set up a standing presumption that is reasonable to rely on—until and unless she changes her mind. If at the end of the date she announces she no longer wants a kiss, it is that consent that matters. It is always the most recent consent that matters since this is the best evidence for what was consented to. There is nothing in libertarianism that says people cannot change their minds. Walter then responds by saying that if you pay a prostitute $100 for sex and she backs out, you can't force her to have sex, as it would be rape, you can only get your money back. But suppose you pay her an extra $900 to induce her to agree that she cannot change her mind, then if you force her it's not rape (to which I respond, "Jesus!"). Of course it's easy to see this logic could also apply to a girl you are dating. If she agrees to have sex with her date and the end of the date and agrees that she "cannot change her...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 442. This is a debate between me and Walter Block about voluntary slavery contracts, hosted by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project as part of his "Together Strong" debate series. (See previous episode KOL426) Unedited transcript (from Youtube) below. https://youtu.be/x6ecMmBpGs8?si=veUW9EnXhwujEAo1 Notes: For further discussion of this topic, see: chapters 9–11, from Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2024; LFFS), namely "A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability," "Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith," and "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection" Re the "Zombicide" comments, see ch. 10, text at n.37 My paper, The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract (Papian Press Working Paper #1) KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery and Inalienability Other than Block and Nozick, Gerard Casey also seems to favor voluntary slavery: “Can You Own Yourself?“, Research Depository UCD Dublin (Dec. 2011) A few comments. African Slavery Walter favors voluntary slavery but not involuntary slavery;  this was one reason he sued the New York Times for defamation, since they claimed he supported slavery (if I recall correctly; 1, 2, 3). But how do we know that all the African slaves in antebellum America were involuntary slaves? Is it established that every African shipped to the US from Africa went against their will? What if they heard life was better in America, and they volunteered to go even knowing they would be enslaved. Wouldn't such a slavery contract be enforceable in Walter's view of slavery? Or take another example. Suppose Jones, owner of a plantation in Louisiana, owns a slave Toby, but he starts to feel bad about slavery and he manumits Toby, and tells him to leave. Toby says he has no money, no food, and he doesn't want to wander around in Louisiana where he might be attacked or enslaved again, and says he would prefer to just stay on Jones's plantation and work for him. Jones says well okay but only if you sell yourself to me and be my slave. So Toby sells himself to Jones. Wouldn't this be legitimate and enforceable, according to Walter's theory? Forced Sex with a Prostitute Walter says that if you sell yourself into slavery, then if you try to run away you are stealing the property of your owner. He is entitled to use force against you since you are disobeying him. Now around 52:13, Mathew asks Walter about my hypothetical about kissing a girl. I had explained that it's not assault/battery or aggression if you kiss a girl if she consents. If during dinner she promises to let you kiss her when you drop her off, and you do, it's also not consent, since her last communication set up a sort of standing presumption. As I write in ch. 9 of LFFS, Part III.C.1: If a girl promises a kiss at the end of the date and the boyfriend an hour later kisses her, she cannot claim it was nonconsensual. In effect, she communicated her consent, she set up a standing presumption that is reasonable to rely on—until and unless she changes her mind. If at the end of the date she announces she no longer wants a kiss, it is that consent that matters. It is always the most recent consent that matters since this is the best evidence for what was consented to. There is nothing in libertarianism that says people cannot change their minds. Walter then responds by saying that if you pay a prostitute $100 for sex and she backs out, you can't force her to have sex, as it would be rape, you can only get your money back. But suppose you pay her an extra $900 to induce her to agree that she cannot change her mind, then if you force her it's not rape (to which I respond, "Jesus!"). Of course it's easy to see this logic could also apply to a girl you are dating. If she agrees to have sex with her date and the end of the date and agrees that she "cannot change her...

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

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

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 440. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella: Part IIb.  (Spotify) Shownotes: The Rational Egoist: Concluding the Intellectual Property Debate with Stephan Kinsella (Part 2 of 2) In this final episode of a two-part series, host Michael Liebowitz concludes his engaging debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney and author, on the moral and legal status of intellectual property. Building on the groundwork laid in the previous discussion, Michael and Kinsella delve further into the core arguments surrounding IP rights, examining their effects on creativity, innovation, and property law. The episode offers compelling insights into both sides of the debate, providing a thorough exploration of one of the most contested issues in legal and economic theory. Tune in for the conclusion of this thought-provoking exchange that challenges established viewpoints and offers fresh perspectives on intellectual property. https://youtu.be/mMa-Cbyq34w?si=_x1_q8VoeFuVJSvO

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 440. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella: Part IIb.  (Spotify) Shownotes: The Rational Egoist: Concluding the Intellectual Property Debate with Stephan Kinsella (Part 2 of 2) In this final episode of a two-part series, host Michael Liebowitz concludes his engaging debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney and author, on the moral and legal status of intellectual property. Building on the groundwork laid in the previous discussion, Michael and Kinsella delve further into the core arguments surrounding IP rights, examining their effects on creativity, innovation, and property law. The episode offers compelling insights into both sides of the debate, providing a thorough exploration of one of the most contested issues in legal and economic theory. Tune in for the conclusion of this thought-provoking exchange that challenges established viewpoints and offers fresh perspectives on intellectual property. https://youtu.be/mMa-Cbyq34w?si=_x1_q8VoeFuVJSvO

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 439. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella: Part IIa.  (Spotify) Michael will release the second half, PartIIb, later. Shownotes: The Rational Egoist: Resuming the Intellectual Property Debate with Stephan Kinsella (Part 1 of 2) In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz resumes his debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney and author, on the contentious issue of intellectual property. Picking up from their conversation a couple of weeks ago, Michael and Kinsella dive even deeper into the philosophical and legal arguments concerning IP rights. This is part one of a two-part series that explores the impact of intellectual property on innovation, individual rights, and economic systems. Join them for a rigorous exchange of ideas that challenges conventional thinking and sets the stage for the next episode's continuation. Michael Leibowitz, host of The Rational Egoist podcast, is a philosopher and political activist who draws inspiration from Ayn Rand's philosophy, advocating for reason, rational self-interest, and individualism. His journey from a 25-year prison sentence to a prominent voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities highlights the transformative impact of embracing these principles. Leibowitz actively participates in political debates and produces content aimed at promoting individual rights and freedoms. He is the co-author of “Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime” and “View from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Liberty,” which explore societal issues and his personal evolution through Rand's teachings. https://youtu.be/8NfUVzLe4gI?si=OY3RCZ9ekYGEqcYU

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 439. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella: Part IIa.  (Spotify) Michael will release the second half, PartIIb, later. Shownotes: The Rational Egoist: Resuming the Intellectual Property Debate with Stephan Kinsella (Part 1 of 2) In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz resumes his debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney and author, on the contentious issue of intellectual property. Picking up from their conversation a couple of weeks ago, Michael and Kinsella dive even deeper into the philosophical and legal arguments concerning IP rights. This is part one of a two-part series that explores the impact of intellectual property on innovation, individual rights, and economic systems. Join them for a rigorous exchange of ideas that challenges conventional thinking and sets the stage for the next episode's continuation. Michael Leibowitz, host of The Rational Egoist podcast, is a philosopher and political activist who draws inspiration from Ayn Rand's philosophy, advocating for reason, rational self-interest, and individualism. His journey from a 25-year prison sentence to a prominent voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities highlights the transformative impact of embracing these principles. Leibowitz actively participates in political debates and produces content aimed at promoting individual rights and freedoms. He is the co-author of “Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime” and “View from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Liberty,” which explore societal issues and his personal evolution through Rand's teachings. https://youtu.be/8NfUVzLe4gI?si=OY3RCZ9ekYGEqcYU

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 437. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella. We focused here mostly on property rights and other precursor concepts. We plan to have a followup discussion to get into the nitty gritty of the application of these more basic concepts and principles to the topic of IP. (Spotify) Shownotes: In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz engages in a thought-provoking discussion and debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian writer and patent attorney, on the moral status of intellectual property. The complexity of the issue sparks a deep dive into the ethical and legal dimensions of IP rights, leading to a conversation so rich that it had to be continued in a future episode. Kinsella, known for his critical views on intellectual property, challenges conventional notions, while Michael offers his own perspective. This episode promises to be a captivating exploration of one of the most debated topics in the intersection of law, philosophy, and economics. Tune in for a rigorous and intellectually stimulating debate that leaves no stone unturned. https://youtu.be/-Xc3nW2rVX8?si=qUCLG--2U2SJRdtU

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 437. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella. We focused here mostly on property rights and other precursor concepts. We plan to have a followup discussion to get into the nitty gritty of the application of these more basic concepts and principles to the topic of IP. (Spotify) Shownotes: In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz engages in a thought-provoking discussion and debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian writer and patent attorney, on the moral status of intellectual property. The complexity of the issue sparks a deep dive into the ethical and legal dimensions of IP rights, leading to a conversation so rich that it had to be continued in a future episode. Kinsella, known for his critical views on intellectual property, challenges conventional notions, while Michael offers his own perspective. This episode promises to be a captivating exploration of one of the most debated topics in the intersection of law, philosophy, and economics. Tune in for a rigorous and intellectually stimulating debate that leaves no stone unturned. https://youtu.be/-Xc3nW2rVX8?si=qUCLG--2U2SJRdtU

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 437. I was a guest this week on Morgan Meets the Eye, with Evan Morgan (recorded July 26, 2024). We discussed a variety of issues, including argumentation ethics, self ownership, using (possessing) vs. owning and possession vs. ownership, parents and children, my estoppel theory of rights, the state and law, punishment vs. restitution, corporations and limited liability, and so on. Many of these issues are touched on in my book Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023). From his shownotes: Patent attorney Stephan Kinsella joins the show to discuss the problems intellectual "property" laws create in society, how these laws came into being in the first place, and why intellectual property is a flawed concept to begin with. In making his case, he explains his argument's roots in argumentation ethics as well as how a proper libertarian legal system should function. Chapters: 0:00 Introduction 03:44 What is argumentation ethics? 31:11 Self-ownership/first use 51:20 Kinsella responds to Robert Murphy's movie theatre argument 56:23 Liberty rights and claim rights 1:03:53 How argumentation ethics relates to law 1:10:08 Private legal systems 1:29:27 Limited liability and the corporate form 1:42:12 Intellectual property laws https://youtu.be/YL9RL8kvNg0?si=hHetD8pKwD2j2j89

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 436. I was interviewed today by Kelly Patrick of the Kelly Patrick Show ep. 777. I fielded questions from his The Kelly Patrick Show Political Chat facebook group, mostly questions from nonlibertarians or people critical of libertarianism. We discussed the prospects of liberty, activism, why people are not persuaded by libertarian arguments, the prospects of the Libertarian Party, intellectual property, anarchism, and so on.