Podcasts about liberty podcast

Join Dan and Corey in a no-holds-barred episode of Libservative, where they kick things off with a half-drunken debate on what constitutes a real truck. Dive into Corey's wild car-buying adventures and critique of the Masters' snobby vibe. They roast the hypocritical Democrats and the stupidity of recent Trump protests, while calling out Lindsey Graham's warmongering tweets. The duo also tackles the convoluted dating scene, shares hilariously bizarre TikToks, and delivers brutal truths about America's oligarchic reality. This episode is a chaotic mix of humor, anger, and raw honesty.00:00 Welcome to Libservative: Setting the Stage01:51 Truck Talk: What Makes a Real Truck?03:53 Cory's First New Car Experience13:26 The Masters and Lottery Tickets16:06 Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party29:55 Trump, Netanyahu, and Iran Negotiations36:41 Lindsey Graham's Controversial Tweet38:55 Iran's Nuclear Program Debate40:31 Historical Context of U.S. Foreign Policy42:27 Trump's Foreign Policy and Iran55:12 Protests and Their Effectiveness01:10:09 Corey's TikTok Reactions01:18:34 Class and Race in Politics01:19:45 The Hypocrisy of Liberal Elites01:22:18 Class vs. Race: A Deeper Dive01:28:55 Principles Over Morals01:31:53 The Modern Dating Scene01:51:19 Final Thoughts and Sign-Off 

After a bit of a hiatus, we are now back at it. Watch our new show in video format on Sunday's at 6pm CST, and then listen to it on your favorite streaming service the next day. 

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. 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 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 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). 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 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 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-

I had the opportunity to be a guest on Ep #16 of Lindsey Beckham's hit podcast "Raising Liberty W/ Lindsey Beckham". Lindsey is an absolute rockstar in the Mississippi GOP and a staunch supporter of parental rights as well as a founding member of the Mississippi chapter of "Mom's for Liberty". We took a DEEP dive into how I went from drug abuser to car salesmen to conservative hell raiser online and on the radio!! I hope y'all enjoy listening to this as much as I enjoyed doing it. Be sure to subscribe to Lindsey's podcast, it's available on every platform in video and audio. Just search "Raising Liberty W/ Lindsey Beckham". You can also click this link and it will take you to her home page and you can subscribe to which ever platform suits you best  https://raisingliberty.podbean.com/  

Helen Dale joins the Law & Liberty Podcast to talk about Australia's sporting prowess and England's political turmoil.

Yuval Levin joins the Law & Liberty Podcast to talk about the Constitution, conflict, and his new book, American Covenant.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 426. Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project, which aims to promote the Non-Aggression Principle as a universal peace agreement, and I discussed various issues including: immigration and open borders, and so on. (See previous episode with Matthew, KOL372 | Discussing Contract Theory, Restitution, Punishment, with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity and KOL362 | California Gold #6, with Matt Sands: Defining Libertarianism, Anarchism and Voluntaryism.) https://youtu.be/zXKxc8QxqKo Related links: Switzerland, Immigration, Hoppe, Raico, Callahan A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders, LewRockwell.com, September 1, 2005 Van Dun on Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement Libertarian Answer Man: Homesteading Donuts, Hostile Encirclement, and Prostitution as Selling One's Body

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 426. Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project, which aims to promote the Non-Aggression Principle as a universal peace agreement, and I discussed various issues including: immigration and open borders, and so on. (See previous episode with Matthew, KOL372 | Discussing Contract Theory, Restitution, Punishment, with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity and KOL362 | California Gold #6, with Matt Sands: Defining Libertarianism, Anarchism and Voluntaryism.) https://youtu.be/zXKxc8QxqKo Related links: Switzerland, Immigration, Hoppe, Raico, Callahan A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders, LewRockwell.com, September 1, 2005 Van Dun on Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement Libertarian Answer Man: Homesteading Donuts, Hostile Encirclement, and Prostitution as Selling One's Body

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 426. Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project, which aims to promote the Non-Aggression Principle as a universal peace agreement, and I discussed various issues including: immigration and open borders, and so on. (See previous episode with Matthew, KOL372 | Discussing Contract Theory, Restitution, Punishment, with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity and KOL362 | California Gold #6, with Matt Sands: Defining Libertarianism, Anarchism and Voluntaryism.) https://youtu.be/zXKxc8QxqKo Related links: Switzerland, Immigration, Hoppe, Raico, Callahan A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders, LewRockwell.com, September 1, 2005 Van Dun on Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement Libertarian Answer Man: Homesteading Donuts, Hostile Encirclement, and Prostitution as Selling One's Body

The greatest divide in the United States today is between those who understand freedom from the ideas of the American Revolution and those who understand it from the perspective of the French Revolution and its ideological heirs. We are at a crossroads between them. Will we return to the roots of freedom inspired by the book of Exodus, or will we follow the path of the French Enlightenment? Can our Republic be restored? If so, how? All of this and more on the Give Me Liberty podcast starting, NOW! Learn more at https://www.standingforfreedom.com Like, share, and subscribe for more! Stand up for TRUTH. Follow us! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/110010433804... Twitter: https://twitter.com/freedomcenterlu Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freedomcent... Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/freedomcenterlu Find us on Rumble! https://rumble.com/user/FreedomCenterLU Listen on the go! https://anchor.fm/freedom-center

America is facing a sexual identity crisis. Confusion regarding gender and sexuality is now celebrated as a virtue. Sadly, this way of thinking has even crept into the Church. How do we combat this? What does the Bible say? All of this and more on the Give Me Liberty podcast starting, NOW! Learn more at https://www.standingforfreedom.com Like, share, and subscribe for more! Stand up for TRUTH. Follow us! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/110010433804... Twitter: https://twitter.com/freedomcenterlu Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freedomcent... Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/freedomcenterlu Find us on Rumble! https://rumble.com/user/FreedomCenterLU Listen on the go! https://anchor.fm/freedom-center

George Washington at Princeton. The Alamo. Brent DeGraff. Threads of Liberty Podcast. George Washington- Princeton. The Alamo

“Know yourself and strive to live in line with the truth, because now, with social media, you're following everybody. Be a leader, you know what I'm saying? Don't be so caught up in what everybody else is doing.”  -Tenelle Donta   Today's guests are Ryan Escobar and Tenelle Donta, the hosts of Souls of Liberty Podcast and Alumni of Metro High School in St. Louis. Ryan and Tenelle sit down with Staci to discuss the role of Alumni for Metro, advice for students in today's day and age, and the pros of attending Metro.  

In this riveting episode, the guys discuss how Rep. Matt Gaetz has gone back to Washington and done exactly what we asked him to do on a previous cast...and how we couldn't be prouder. Check out our merch and other Links

In this episode, we have my last Freedom Fest 2023 interview. This conversation was with Caryn Ann Harlos, Secretary for the LNC and host of the Pink Flame of Liberty Podcast. We had a conversation about the role of Christians in politics, and what parallels exist between Christianity and libertarianism. We also talked about the state of the LP and the upcoming election cycle. The Biblical Anarchy Podcast (https://BiblicalAnarchyPodcast.com) is part of the Christians For Liberty Network (https://christiansforliberty.net), a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute (https://libertarianchristians.com). Audio Production by Podsworth Media - https://podsworth.com 

The guys discuss connections of the President to Hunter's Crimes.Shop Like a Conservative 

The Driveway Liberty Podcast: Utah Man Killed by F.B.I. Threatened Biden's Life

Bill Federer joins Ryan Helfenbein to share an encouraging message on why it's time for Christians to be bold. Would Jesus tolerate the trans agenda being pushed by the woke mob of the day? Christians have a biblical calling to speak life into a world going dark. Will you stand for truth? All of this and more on the Give Me Liberty Podcast starting..... NOW Learn more at https://www.standingforfreedom.com ! Like, share, and subscribe for more! Stand up for TRUTH. Follow us!

Welcome to the Sons of Liberty Podcast! Coming to you from the Liberty Tree Studio in San Antonio TEXAS. Where we discuss the topics of the day, firearms, great food and even better whiskey. Grab a drink and sit down with your hosts, the founding daddies, Mike Mihalski and Kyle Grothues.  --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/solgw-podcast/message

America's food and infrastructure are under attack. What can you do? What do you need to do? JC Hall talks with Jesse Jaymz of the Dangerous Info Podcast about solutions. https://rumble.com/c/DangerousInfoPodcast https://www.guilded.gg/r/zzwRekJ1yE?i=dwpoby0m --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/the-krisanne-hall-show/support

82 Minutes PG-13 Jacob of the Rise to Liberty Podcast invited Pete to come on his show to talk about how Pete views the current political and social culture. He asks Pete his views on how we get past the political and cultural Leviathan that has grown and consumed so much. Today's Sponsor-  Crowdhealth - Promo Code: peteq  Rise to Liberty Links Get Autonomy 19 Skills PDF Download The Monopoly On Violence Support Pete on His Website Pete's Patreon Pete's Substack Pete's Subscribestar GabPay - @petequinones Pete's Venmo Pete on Facebook Pete on Twitter

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 404. This was my Webinar presentation at the Freedom Hub Working Group, billed as: "For Over-Drugging of our Bodies and Food, Blame INTELLECTUAL Property" (Wed., Feb. 9, 2023), with co-hosts Jim Grapek and Charles Frohman. It was released under the title "How Humanity's Progress Has Been Held Back: The Case Against IP (Intellectual Property)." Rumble: !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/uc1wv9"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble"); Rumble("play", {"video":"v26kgic","div":"rumble_v26kgic"}); Youtube: https://youtu.be/hRm-PIxHS1Q From their Shownotes: Whenever a politician gets pinned down for the lousy health care system we must endure, they spit out some glib demagoguery about expensive drug prices.  None of these politicians know why they're expensive, especially not the cause of INTELLECTUAL property. Property is sacred, of course, but that's tangible, and a bit intangible when one considers the property rights we have in our minds – not just what we produce on our own.  But as far back as the Constitution, protectionist impulses led our Founders to benefit domestic manufactures with a threat to punish competitors if they dared to compete with the recipient of IP welfare, in the form of a patent, copyright or trademark. But each of these examples of corporate welfare got their start through government coercion.  Copyrights emanated from worry over the printing press, and how it could print ideas threatening to the government.  Patents originated in piracy – a “legal” form given by the Queen to Drake to plunder the world.  IP relates to ideas, which cannot be owned. On the flip side, we know how entrepreneurs seemingly offer us the same thing as a preceding company, but in a manner that better suits our tastes and pocketbook.  Should that smart business person be denied selling us this improvement, if the previous supplier got some politician to grant an IP monopoly – for a set period of time? IP is political.  It's not a market creation.  Pharma uses IP loopholes to retain monopolies on certain disease cures that lead to patients paying thousands of dollars a month to get well.  And treaties over the years have sought global enforcement through the World Trade Organization and related bureaucracies.  IP needs abolition. LinkedIn announcement: Prescriptions cost an arm and a leg because they're granted immunity from competition (so-called "Intellectual" property (IP)) and withheld from the market until a decade of trials that don't always prove in disease outcomes superiority to natural alternatives. IP lawyer N. Stephan Kinsella says consumers would be better off if entrepreneurs were allowed to apply to ideas improvements now stymied by IP. From their promo materials: For Over-Drugging of our Bodies and Food, Blame INTELLECTUAL Property IP is a damaging example of corporate welfare With Stephan Kinsella, IP lawyer With co-hosts Jim Grapek, Pavilion founder and award-winning producer/filmmaker; and Charles Frohman, Cash-patient Maker & Health Freedom Lobbyist Thursday, February 9th 12 - 1pm Eastern Time ... Whenever a politician gets pinned down for the lousy health care system we must endure, they spit out some glib demagoguery about expensive drug prices.  None of these politicians know why they're expensive, especially not the cause of INTELLECTUAL property. Property is sacred, of course, but that's tangible, and a bit intangible when one considers the property rights we have in our minds - not just what we produce or own.  But as far back as the Constitution,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 404. This was my Webinar presentation at the Freedom Hub Working Group, billed as: "For Over-Drugging of our Bodies and Food, Blame INTELLECTUAL Property" (Wed., Feb. 9, 2023), with co-hosts Jim Grapek and Charles Frohman. It was released under the title "How Humanity's Progress Has Been Held Back: The Case Against IP (Intellectual Property)." Rumble: !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/uc1wv9"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble"); Rumble("play", {"video":"v26kgic","div":"rumble_v26kgic"}); Youtube: https://youtu.be/hRm-PIxHS1Q From their Shownotes: Whenever a politician gets pinned down for the lousy health care system we must endure, they spit out some glib demagoguery about expensive drug prices.  None of these politicians know why they're expensive, especially not the cause of INTELLECTUAL property. Property is sacred, of course, but that's tangible, and a bit intangible when one considers the property rights we have in our minds – not just what we produce on our own.  But as far back as the Constitution, protectionist impulses led our Founders to benefit domestic manufactures with a threat to punish competitors if they dared to compete with the recipient of IP welfare, in the form of a patent, copyright or trademark. But each of these examples of corporate welfare got their start through government coercion.  Copyrights emanated from worry over the printing press, and how it could print ideas threatening to the government.  Patents originated in piracy – a “legal” form given by the Queen to Drake to plunder the world.  IP relates to ideas, which cannot be owned. On the flip side, we know how entrepreneurs seemingly offer us the same thing as a preceding company, but in a manner that better suits our tastes and pocketbook.  Should that smart business person be denied selling us this improvement, if the previous supplier got some politician to grant an IP monopoly – for a set period of time? IP is political.  It's not a market creation.  Pharma uses IP loopholes to retain monopolies on certain disease cures that lead to patients paying thousands of dollars a month to get well.  And treaties over the years have sought global enforcement through the World Trade Organization and related bureaucracies.  IP needs abolition. LinkedIn announcement: Prescriptions cost an arm and a leg because they're granted immunity from competition (so-called "Intellectual" property (IP)) and withheld from the market until a decade of trials that don't always prove in disease outcomes superiority to natural alternatives. IP lawyer N. Stephan Kinsella says consumers would be better off if entrepreneurs were allowed to apply to ideas improvements now stymied by IP. From their promo materials: For Over-Drugging of our Bodies and Food, Blame INTELLECTUAL Property IP is a damaging example of corporate welfare With Stephan Kinsella, IP lawyer With co-hosts Jim Grapek, Pavilion founder and award-winning producer/filmmaker; and Charles Frohman, Cash-patient Maker & Health Freedom Lobbyist Thursday, February 9th 12 - 1pm Eastern Time ... Whenever a politician gets pinned down for the lousy health care system we must endure, they spit out some glib demagoguery about expensive drug prices.  None of these politicians know why they're expensive, especially not the cause of INTELLECTUAL property. Property is sacred, of course, but that's tangible, and a bit intangible when one considers the property rights we have in our minds - not just what we produce or own.  But as far back as the Constitution,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 403. I was a guest today (Jan. 27, 2023) on The Bitcoin Group #343, on the World Crypto Network (Youtube channel), hosted by Thomas Hunt @MadBitcoins. The other panelists included the CryptoRaptor (Dan Eve); Ben Arc; Martin @generalbyltes. We discussed a variety of topics. https://youtu.be/878nyinOyqQ Shownotes: Featuring… Joshua Scigala (https://twitter.com/Vaultoro) Dan Eve (https://twitter.com/cryptopoly) Stephan Kinsella (https://twitter.com/NSKinsella) and Thomas Hunt (https://twitter.com/MadBitcoins)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 403. I was a guest today (Jan. 27, 2023) on The Bitcoin Group #343, on the World Crypto Network (Youtube channel), hosted by Thomas Hunt @MadBitcoins. The other panelists included the CryptoRaptor (Dan Eve); Ben Arc; Martin @generalbyltes. We discussed a variety of topics. https://youtu.be/878nyinOyqQ Shownotes: Featuring… Joshua Scigala (https://twitter.com/Vaultoro) Dan Eve (https://twitter.com/cryptopoly) Stephan Kinsella (https://twitter.com/NSKinsella) and Thomas Hunt (https://twitter.com/MadBitcoins)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 402. This is my presentation (audio only) at the Austrian Economics Discord Conference: “Inflation, Money, and the State,” Austrian Economics Discord Server (Jan. 7–8, 2023); my talk was "Inflation: Its Causes, Effects, Parallels and Death in a Bitcoin World." Previous appearance: KOL371 | Austrian Economics Discord Conference: Law, Decentralized and Centralized. My talk below: https://youtu.be/Uvi05GJE5LM   Final trailer: https://youtu.be/890corLQKFM Original trailer: https://youtu.be/AgsocsxhIws For last year's, see: “Law: Decentralized and Centralized,” Austrian Economics Discord Conference: “The Enduring Importance of the Austrian School,” Austrian Economics Discord Server (Jan. 8–9, 2022) [KOL371]. Related material: Paul Cantor, Hyperinflation and Hyperreality Theodore Dalrymple, "Inflation's Moral Hazard" Guido Hülsmann, The Ethics of Money Production Adam Fergusson, When Money Dies Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, ch. 1 and TSC, p. 27, on the negative effects of inflation on character Jeffrey Tucker, How the End of Negative Interest Rates Affects Your Life ((Generations over hundreds and thousands of years have been acculturated to believe that good things come to those who wait. Sacrifice some now and you earn greater rewards later. Study hard for the exam and you get an A. Study hard for all exams and you graduate with honors. Graduate with honors and you have a better chance of getting a good-paying job.So on it goes with the whole of life. The more you defer your consumption and indulgence in the here and now, and think about the future, the better off you will be. That presumption is naturally built into the financial system. The yield curve in normal times provides a higher payout in the future than it does in the present. It teaches us to defer consumption, forgoing whatever joy there is in the present, in favor of great reward down the line.Again, in normal times, that means that savers win in the long run. Keep socking money away in the bank rather than taking that extra vacation, give it a few years, and you have a solid nest egg.All of economics is supposed to work this way. The guy alone on the island who wants to catch more fish needs to spend a day or two making a net but in order to afford that time away from scooping up fish as he sees them, he needs to save up food to live on while he constructs his capital goods. )) Kinsella, “Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010),  (( Longer version: “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995), p. 132 )) on negative effects of uncertainty (( Negative Effects of UncertaintyLegislation tends to interfere with agreements that courts would otherwise have enforced and thereby makes parties to contracts less certain that the contract will ultimately be enforced. Thus, individuals tend to rely less on contracts, leading them to develop costly alternatives such as structuring companies, transactions, or production processes differently than they otherwise would have."There is much more certainty in a decentralized legal system than in a centralized, legislation-based system."Another pernicious effect of the increased uncertainty in legislation-based systems is the increase of overall time preference. Individuals invariably demonstrate a preference for earlier goods over later goods, all things being equal. When time preferences are lower, individuals are more willing to forgo immediate benefits such as consumption, and invest their time and capital in more indirect (i.e., more roundabout, lengthier) production processes, which yield more or better goods for consumption or for further production. Any artificial raising of the general time-preference rate thus tends to impoverish society by pushing us away from production and long-term investments. Yet increased uncertainty,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 402. This is my presentation (audio only) at the Austrian Economics Discord Conference: “Inflation, Money, and the State,” Austrian Economics Discord Server (Jan. 7–8, 2023); my talk was "Inflation: Its Causes, Effects, Parallels and Death in a Bitcoin World." Previous appearance: KOL371 | Austrian Economics Discord Conference: Law, Decentralized and Centralized. My talk below: https://youtu.be/Uvi05GJE5LM   Final trailer: https://youtu.be/890corLQKFM Original trailer: https://youtu.be/AgsocsxhIws For last year's, see: “Law: Decentralized and Centralized,” Austrian Economics Discord Conference: “The Enduring Importance of the Austrian School,” Austrian Economics Discord Server (Jan. 8–9, 2022) [KOL371]. Related material: Paul Cantor, Hyperinflation and Hyperreality Theodore Dalrymple, "Inflation's Moral Hazard" Guido Hülsmann, The Ethics of Money Production Adam Fergusson, When Money Dies Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, ch. 1 and TSC, p. 27, on the negative effects of inflation on character Jeffrey Tucker, How the End of Negative Interest Rates Affects Your Life ((Generations over hundreds and thousands of years have been acculturated to believe that good things come to those who wait. Sacrifice some now and you earn greater rewards later. Study hard for the exam and you get an A. Study hard for all exams and you graduate with honors. Graduate with honors and you have a better chance of getting a good-paying job.So on it goes with the whole of life. The more you defer your consumption and indulgence in the here and now, and think about the future, the better off you will be. That presumption is naturally built into the financial system. The yield curve in normal times provides a higher payout in the future than it does in the present. It teaches us to defer consumption, forgoing whatever joy there is in the present, in favor of great reward down the line.Again, in normal times, that means that savers win in the long run. Keep socking money away in the bank rather than taking that extra vacation, give it a few years, and you have a solid nest egg.All of economics is supposed to work this way. The guy alone on the island who wants to catch more fish needs to spend a day or two making a net but in order to afford that time away from scooping up fish as he sees them, he needs to save up food to live on while he constructs his capital goods. )) Kinsella, “Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010),  (( Longer version: “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995), p. 132 )) on negative effects of uncertainty (( Negative Effects of UncertaintyLegislation tends to interfere with agreements that courts would otherwise have enforced and thereby makes parties to contracts less certain that the contract will ultimately be enforced. Thus, individuals tend to rely less on contracts, leading them to develop costly alternatives such as structuring companies, transactions, or production processes differently than they otherwise would have."There is much more certainty in a decentralized legal system than in a centralized, legislation-based system."Another pernicious effect of the increased uncertainty in legislation-based systems is the increase of overall time preference. Individuals invariably demonstrate a preference for earlier goods over later goods, all things being equal. When time preferences are lower, individuals are more willing to forgo immediate benefits such as consumption, and invest their time and capital in more indirect (i.e., more roundabout, lengthier) production processes, which yield more or better goods for consumption or for further production. Any artificial raising of the general time-preference rate thus tends to impoverish society by pushing us away from production and long-term investments. Yet increased uncertainty,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 401. I appeared on a Twitter Spaces discussion Jan. 12, 2023 for Sazmining, for the topic "Bitcoin & Property Rights," with Kent Halliburton and Logan Chipkin. A variety of questions were fielded. A synopsis and transcript are here, and re-pixeled below. Synopsis: Lawyer and libertarian theorist Stephan Kinsella joins Logan Chipkin and Kent Halliburton to discuss Bitcoin from a property rights perspective. If Bitcoin is not physical, how can anyone own it, if at all? Transcript: Kent Halliburton (00:06:31): Sure. Uh, thank you Logan, for the opportunity. You're gonna have to do a little intro for yourself as well. You do an excellent job hosting these spaces, but I operate as the president and COO here at SAS Mining, which means I, uh, manage all the internal affairs. Uh, my first career was in solar, rooftop solar. And, uh, very excited for this conversation to learn from you, Stefan. Um, definitely libertarianism has, uh, has gotten to be in my crosshairs, uh, the further I've gone down my, uh, myBitcoin journey here. But, um, yeah, been, I think you are the first, uh, first Austria, Austria, libertarian, uh, that I've spoken to, and, uh, came to learn a lot from you. Stephan Kinsella (00:07:16): Well, glad to, uh, meet you and, uh,prepare to have your mind blown Logan Chipkin (00:07:21): . Uh, yes. So I'll, afew words about me. So I've been a, I'm a longtime writer, been writing aboutall sorts of stuff, journalism, physics, economics for years. And now I'm happyto be working with SaaS mining to really create a lot of our content aroundbitcoin, bitcoin mining and energy. Um, so that's a little bit about me. Uh,Stefan, before we start, do you wanna, uh, tell us a little bit about yourselfand your background? Stephan Kinsella (00:07:46): Well, I live in Houston, Texas. I amfrom Louisiana originally. I'm a, I'm an attorney, a retired attorney. I'm apatent attorney, uh, but also have long time been a libertarian speaker, writerand thinker. Uh, uh, mostly influenced by the Austrian economics and anarchist,uh, you know, camp of Rothbard and Mees and these guys. So that's my take. I'ma, I'm a, I'm a, I'm a huge Bitcoin, um, uh, hopeful advocate. I don't knowwhat you want to call it, . So, yeah, that's, that's my take. PlusI was an electrical engineer in, in, in college, so, uh, yeah, I'm, I'minterested in technology and, uh, those related matters too. Logan Chipkin (00:08:31): Perfect. Yeah, I'm just to let theaudience know, fyi, I'm also essentially an a austral libertarian. I tend tonot use that word, uh, in other context cuz people probably don't often knowwhat that is. But since Steph's here, I figured out why not break open thechampagne bottles. Um, so it's nice to be amongst my people as it were. Notthat bitcoiners aren't, but anyway. So before we get into, so today we're gonnatalk about Bitcoin and kind, kind of how Bitcoin relates to property rights,uh, and we'll see why that's relevant soon. But Stefan, before we get intothat, what is Ostro libertarianism and what is the Ost austral libertarian viewof property rights? Stephan Kinsella (00:09:07): Yeah, that's interesting. So, and,and I'm, I'm assuming we have sort of a generic audience who probably doesn'tknow all this stuff. So, um, yeah, so basically, um, economics is just a studyof wealth, how wealth is created in society, right? And so there is a freemarket economics and socialist economics and things like that. And there's asub school called Austrian Economics, which is a special type of approach toeconomics, pioneered by Carl Manger and Lu Luon Meas and Friedrich Hayek and MurrayRothbard and these guys. And, um, from, probably, from most of your audience'spoint of view, the, the fundamental thing to think about, uh, what's uniqueabout Austrian economics is it's, it's focused on the individual look. So everyindividual is the actor and it's hyper free market.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 401. I appeared on a Twitter Spaces discussion Jan. 12, 2023 for Sazmining, for the topic "Bitcoin & Property Rights," with Kent Halliburton and Logan Chipkin. A variety of questions were fielded. A synopsis and transcript are here, and re-pixeled below. Synopsis: Lawyer and libertarian theorist Stephan Kinsella joins Logan Chipkin and Kent Halliburton to discuss Bitcoin from a property rights perspective. If Bitcoin is not physical, how can anyone own it, if at all? Transcript: Kent Halliburton (00:06:31): Sure. Uh, thank you Logan, for the opportunity. You're gonna have to do a little intro for yourself as well. You do an excellent job hosting these spaces, but I operate as the president and COO here at SAS Mining, which means I, uh, manage all the internal affairs. Uh, my first career was in solar, rooftop solar. And, uh, very excited for this conversation to learn from you, Stefan. Um, definitely libertarianism has, uh, has gotten to be in my crosshairs, uh, the further I've gone down my, uh, myBitcoin journey here. But, um, yeah, been, I think you are the first, uh, first Austria, Austria, libertarian, uh, that I've spoken to, and, uh, came to learn a lot from you. Stephan Kinsella (00:07:16): Well, glad to, uh, meet you and, uh,prepare to have your mind blown Logan Chipkin (00:07:21): . Uh, yes. So I'll, afew words about me. So I've been a, I'm a longtime writer, been writing aboutall sorts of stuff, journalism, physics, economics for years. And now I'm happyto be working with SaaS mining to really create a lot of our content aroundbitcoin, bitcoin mining and energy. Um, so that's a little bit about me. Uh,Stefan, before we start, do you wanna, uh, tell us a little bit about yourselfand your background? Stephan Kinsella (00:07:46): Well, I live in Houston, Texas. I amfrom Louisiana originally. I'm a, I'm an attorney, a retired attorney. I'm apatent attorney, uh, but also have long time been a libertarian speaker, writerand thinker. Uh, uh, mostly influenced by the Austrian economics and anarchist,uh, you know, camp of Rothbard and Mees and these guys. So that's my take. I'ma, I'm a, I'm a, I'm a huge Bitcoin, um, uh, hopeful advocate. I don't knowwhat you want to call it, . So, yeah, that's, that's my take. PlusI was an electrical engineer in, in, in college, so, uh, yeah, I'm, I'minterested in technology and, uh, those related matters too. Logan Chipkin (00:08:31): Perfect. Yeah, I'm just to let theaudience know, fyi, I'm also essentially an a austral libertarian. I tend tonot use that word, uh, in other context cuz people probably don't often knowwhat that is. But since Steph's here, I figured out why not break open thechampagne bottles. Um, so it's nice to be amongst my people as it were. Notthat bitcoiners aren't, but anyway. So before we get into, so today we're gonnatalk about Bitcoin and kind, kind of how Bitcoin relates to property rights,uh, and we'll see why that's relevant soon. But Stefan, before we get intothat, what is Ostro libertarianism and what is the Ost austral libertarian viewof property rights? Stephan Kinsella (00:09:07): Yeah, that's interesting. So, and,and I'm, I'm assuming we have sort of a generic audience who probably doesn'tknow all this stuff. So, um, yeah, so basically, um, economics is just a studyof wealth, how wealth is created in society, right? And so there is a freemarket economics and socialist economics and things like that. And there's asub school called Austrian Economics, which is a special type of approach toeconomics, pioneered by Carl Manger and Lu Luon Meas and Friedrich Hayek and MurrayRothbard and these guys. And, um, from, probably, from most of your audience'spoint of view, the, the fundamental thing to think about, uh, what's uniqueabout Austrian economics is it's, it's focused on the individual look. So everyindividual is the actor and it's hyper free market.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 400. I appeared tonight (Dec. 7, 2022) on the LP Mises Caucus's Ask an Austrian podcast and youtube channel, episode 11, at the request of Liam McCollum. I fielded as many questions as I could in the allotted time. The questions given to me ahead of the session are posted below, most of which I addressed. https://youtu.be/lcDVXIg_0Lw Questions: Karson Rosander - can you explain the history of the term “intellectual property” and how it's evolved? How can I use that to explain it's not like traditional property? Karson Rosander - what have you found to be the best way to sell your position on IP to conservatives? Harrison - Do you think the free market could develop some sort of protection for IP? Do you think blockchain might be a free market solution to IP? Michael - what do you think about Rothbard's argument for natural law in ethics of liberty? Aaron Harris - what would be the most significant changes in society if IP laws were abolished? Is there a particular way they should be phased out? Chris Forrest - Do you think it's fair to say that public property (such as roads, libraries etc.) is rightfully owned by the taxpayer, as restitution for the aggression committed against them by the state as well as the companies that build these things, seeing as they're guilty of possession of stolen goods (tax money)? Zach Szklarz - why deontological liberty? Are consequentialist arguments wrong, or just not as good as natural-rights arguments? Is it fair to use consequentialist arguments to back up your ideas based on deontological libertarianism? (maybe explain deontological or consequentialist for the rest of the listeners) Adam Thuen - How did IP get established in the US, what was the intent in its adoption and how has it been corrupted? Given the acceleration of tech and its ability to drastically change quality of life, why haven't timeframes for patents and copyrights been reduced? Adam Thuen - Is there an economic and legal case to abolish these frameworks? Where is the line between a chef trying to protect family recipes and an entrepreneurial person trying to make their way by providing a good or service? How does this play with our globs system? We all know China and other countries engage in corporate espionage (as well as many American companies) Liam - Are you in favor of decentralization on principle or is something like the incorporation doctrine legitimate? Do you think we should oppose centralization in all cases, even if it's in the name of liberty? Are there any scenarios where a more centralized power should check a lower power? Brady - What is polycentric law? Are you in favor of it? Liam - What would a libertarian court system look like? Is a common-law system more consistent with libertarianism than the current centralized system with the US Supreme Court? Riley Wipf - What is the best way to use Austrian Economics in entry-level business to help create value? Dan Zembiak - The US is over $30 trillion dollars in debt. Who exactly is that debt owed to? Alex Dillard - Do you think it is viable for libertarians to work in coalitions with populist forces (such as independent leftists like Jimmy Dore, as well as paleoconservative and populist conservative forces)? Has the previous LP leadership tried to appeal too much to centrist forces? Joe - are you pessimistic in light of recent foreign policy developments? Sachin Patil - Dear Sir, How would a country (say like US) transform from democracy to Anarcho capitalism? Suppose the entire Government resigns. What then? Wouldn't the vaccum crested be filled by mafia? Or even a foreign country? Sachin Patil - How would defence, Police & Judiciary be privatised? How can we make the transformation from democracy to Anarcho Capitalism? Kareem Maize - What is the ricardian law of association in your own words and how does that relate to social...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 400. I appeared tonight (Dec. 7, 2022) on the LP Mises Caucus's Ask an Austrian podcast and youtube channel, episode 11, at the request of Liam McCollum. I fielded as many questions as I could in the allotted time. The questions given to me ahead of the session are posted below, most of which I addressed. https://youtu.be/lcDVXIg_0Lw Questions: Karson Rosander - can you explain the history of the term “intellectual property” and how it's evolved? How can I use that to explain it's not like traditional property? Karson Rosander - what have you found to be the best way to sell your position on IP to conservatives? Harrison - Do you think the free market could develop some sort of protection for IP? Do you think blockchain might be a free market solution to IP? Michael - what do you think about Rothbard's argument for natural law in ethics of liberty? Aaron Harris - what would be the most significant changes in society if IP laws were abolished? Is there a particular way they should be phased out? Chris Forrest - Do you think it's fair to say that public property (such as roads, libraries etc.) is rightfully owned by the taxpayer, as restitution for the aggression committed against them by the state as well as the companies that build these things, seeing as they're guilty of possession of stolen goods (tax money)? Zach Szklarz - why deontological liberty? Are consequentialist arguments wrong, or just not as good as natural-rights arguments? Is it fair to use consequentialist arguments to back up your ideas based on deontological libertarianism? (maybe explain deontological or consequentialist for the rest of the listeners) Adam Thuen - How did IP get established in the US, what was the intent in its adoption and how has it been corrupted? Given the acceleration of tech and its ability to drastically change quality of life, why haven't timeframes for patents and copyrights been reduced? Adam Thuen - Is there an economic and legal case to abolish these frameworks? Where is the line between a chef trying to protect family recipes and an entrepreneurial person trying to make their way by providing a good or service? How does this play with our globs system? We all know China and other countries engage in corporate espionage (as well as many American companies) Liam - Are you in favor of decentralization on principle or is something like the incorporation doctrine legitimate? Do you think we should oppose centralization in all cases, even if it's in the name of liberty? Are there any scenarios where a more centralized power should check a lower power? Brady - What is polycentric law? Are you in favor of it? Liam - What would a libertarian court system look like? Is a common-law system more consistent with libertarianism than the current centralized system with the US Supreme Court? Riley Wipf - What is the best way to use Austrian Economics in entry-level business to help create value? Dan Zembiak - The US is over $30 trillion dollars in debt. Who exactly is that debt owed to? Alex Dillard - Do you think it is viable for libertarians to work in coalitions with populist forces (such as independent leftists like Jimmy Dore, as well as paleoconservative and populist conservative forces)? Has the previous LP leadership tried to appeal too much to centrist forces? Joe - are you pessimistic in light of recent foreign policy developments? Sachin Patil - Dear Sir, How would a country (say like US) transform from democracy to Anarcho capitalism? Suppose the entire Government resigns. What then? Wouldn't the vaccum crested be filled by mafia? Or even a foreign country? Sachin Patil - How would defence, Police & Judiciary be privatised? How can we make the transformation from democracy to Anarcho Capitalism? Kareem Maize - What is the ricardian law of association in your own words and how does that relate to social...

Happy Thanksgiving! There is so much to be grateful for.

I joined the amazing crew over at The Boss Hog of Liberty last night to talk about the importance of local politics, creating a culture of liberty (before trying to make political wins), and how politics change from locality to locality. What are politics like where you live? Let us know down below in the comment! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, we would like to introduce you to The Liberty Podcast, a show from Fool & Scholar Productions.  From the world of Liberty comes Tales From the Tower – Standalone stories of myths, legends, and horror to haunt the Citizens of Atrius. Join your host for this nighttime broadcast and and hope that the Archon watches over you. In our inaugural trek into the abyss we meet a mild-mannered scientist who's been called to return to his apartment under undisclosed circumstances. He's unfamiliar with the train local station at this odd hour and no one is around save a single traveler seated at the end of the cab… An old man who may just be an impostor. This is a Fool and Scholar Production. We are a two person creative team and we can only create this show because of fan support! Please support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/FoolandScholar Check out our Merch: www.LibertyEndures.com Free Transcripts are also available: https://www.patreon.com/posts/tales-from-tower-6887972/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, we would like to introduce you to The Liberty Podcast, a show from Fool & Scholar Productions.  From the world of Liberty comes Tales From the Tower – Standalone stories of myths, legends, and horror to haunt the Citizens of Atrius. Join your host for this nighttime broadcast and and hope that the Archon watches over you. During a controlled release of gas, a group of friends who settles in during the lockdown for a much-anticipated game of Mines and Mysteries... This is a Fool and Scholar Production. We are a two person creative team and we can only create this show because of fan support! Please support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/FoolandScholar Check out our Merch: www.LibertyEndures.com Free Transcripts are also available: https://www.patreon.com/posts/tales-from-tower-6887972/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jacob Johnson is the host of Rise To Liberty podcast, a proud libertarian who chairs his local county affiliate & 2022 libertarian candidate for Utah house of representatives for district 9 in Weber County. Jacob was raised with a love … Continue reading →