Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 493. This is my talk "Rothbard’s Greatest Hits: A Personal Mix Tape," delivered at “100 Years with Rothbard,” Porto, Portugal, June 27, 2026. (From my iPhone audio; professional video and audio will be uploaded at a later date.) This was a simply wonderful event. As noted here, 100 Years with Rothbard was held yesterday in beautiful Porto, Portugal (June 27, 2026), sponsored by several Portuguese libertarian groups: Mises Portugal, Catalaxia, Don’t Trust Verify (bitcoin podcast), ZugaTV (libertarian podcast), and Golpe de Estado Podcast (ancap podcasters). It featured and was attended by a number of Property and Freedom Society (PFS) members, including myself, Hans Hoppe and Gülçin Imre Hoppe, Saifedean Ammous, Thomas Jacob, Gregory and Joy Morin, and Alessandro and Domitia Fusillo. Hoppe, and Ammous and I spoke at the conference along with others. It was a wonderful event, attended by hundreds from Portugal and many other countries. In addition to the speeches, the cloth print version of Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment was presented and released yesterday, as was its Brazilian Portuguese translation, 100 Anos de Rothbard: Uma Homenagem e Apreciação, as well as Fundamentos Legais de uma Sociedade Livre, the European Portuguese translation of my book Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023). A full report of the conference will be published presently. In the meantime, for an outside commentary see Rothbard 100, in Porto: A Misunderstood Genius in a Room of People Who Understood. Related 100 Years with Rothbard Rothbard 100, in Porto: A Misunderstood Genius in a Room of People Who Understood Rothbard at 100: First Hardcopies Printed A few pictures and tweets below, and my speaking notes. Grok Notes from my Shownotes Rothbard’s Greatest Hits: A Personal Mix Tape Recorded live at the Rothbard at 100 conference Porto, Portugal • June 27, 2026 Presented by Stephan Kinsella Property and Freedom Society • C4SIF.org In this entertaining and insightful talk, Stephan Kinsella delivers his personal “greatest hits” selection from Murray Rothbard’s enormous body of work — the ideas, arguments, and even the funniest moments that have influenced him most over the decades. Show Notes & Key Points Libertarianism and Rothbard Kinsella has been a libertarian since high school (age ~15) — about 45 years. He became a Rothbard fan just a couple of years later, as soon as he started reading him. He has been an intellectual property attorney for ~33 years (since 1993) and has been opposed to IP for the same length of time. Rothbard’s Greatest Hits – A Personal Mix Tape In his chapter in the new book Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment (edited by Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe), Kinsella highlights Rothbard’s most important and interesting insights. He compares the talk to making a “Rothbard greatest hits” mix tape — the kind he used to make for girlfriends — or even a mix containing only the guitar solos from his favorite band, Rush (another passion he’s had since age 15). Others’ Favorite Rothbard Works Rothbard was incredibly prolific. Here are some of his most popular and influential works mentioned: Man, Economy, and State Power and Market For a New Liberty The Ethics of Liberty Conceived in Liberty (multi-volume) America’s Great Depression What Has Government Done to Our Money? An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought The Betrayal of the American Right Anatomy of the State The Progressive Era “War Guilt in the Middle East” Highly recommended collections: The Free Market Reader The Irrepressible Rothbard (2000) Making Economic Sense (1996) Economic Controversies (2011) One of the best pieces ever written about Rothbard is Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s introduction to the 1998 edition of The Ethics of Liberty. Kinsella’s Personal Favorites These are the ideas and writings Kinsella has found most useful, interesting, or clever: The Dog That Did Not Bark (Rothbard on IP) At a 1988 panel discussion on ethics with Rothbard, Hoppe, and others, someone asked Hoppe whether personal sovereignty extends to knowledge and ideas. Hoppe’s answer: “In order to have a thought you must have property rights over your body. That doesn’t imply that you own your thoughts. The thoughts can be used by anybody who is capable of understanding them.” Rothbard remained silent. Hoppe later said he believes Rothbard was “almost there” and would have adopted the full anti-IP position had he lived longer. Contract Theory – Title-Transfer Theory One of Rothbard’s most important contributions (developed with Williamson Evers) is the title-transfer theory of contract. Rothbard suggested the idea, Evers wrote it up, and Rothbard later used it in The Ethics of Liberty. This theory finally makes coherent sense of contract law as an extension of property rights rather than a separate mystical category. Utility and Welfare Economics In “Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics” (in Economic Controversies), Rothbard emphasized that value is not a measurable, cardinal quantity that can be interpersonally compared — a point also stressed by Mises. Taxonomy of State Intervention In Power and Market, Rothbard systematically classifies state interventions as: Autistic Binary (e.g., taxation) Triangular (e.g., antitrust, licensing, and intellectual property) Kinsella notes that IP is a classic triangular intervention — a nonconsensual negative servitude that lets the IP holder control other people’s property. The Funny Rothbard Rothbard had a sharp wit. Some highlights Kinsella loves: “Mozart Was a Red” — a hilarious play mocking “dimwit and serioso” Randians. “Hoppephobia” (Liberty magazine, March 1990) — Rothbard’s response to a critical review of Hoppe’s book. Classic line: Hoppe’s work has the “remarkable capacity to send some readers up the wall, blood pressure soaring, muttering and chewing the carpet.” The Galambos story: A Galambosian author who believed in perpetual IP sent Rothbard a $100 check for using his ideas. Rothbard returned it, saying that if the author really believed in owning ideas, he owed all his royalties, not just $100. Critiques of Nozick and Georgism Rothbard’s devastating critique of Robert Nozick’s argument for the minimal state in “Robert Nozick and the Immaculate Conception of the State.” Complete demolition of Georgism in “The Single Tax: Economic and Moral Implications” and the reply to Georgist criticisms. (Kinsella adds: “Egads, I hate Georgism.”) Method Next to The Ethics of Liberty, Kinsella finds Rothbard’s essays in Economic Controversies (especially Part One: Method) among the most useful. He compares them to the first 100 pages of Mises’ Human Action on methodology. Resources & Further Reading Book: Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment — Available at PropertyAndFreedom.org Kinsella’s chapter & related article: Read here IP as Negative Servitudes: C4SIF.org article Stephan Kinsella’s site: StephanKinsella.com C4SIF: C4SIF.org Property and Freedom Society: PropertyAndFreedom.org Kinsella Slide Shownotes Rothbard’s Greatest Hits: A Personal Mix Tape Stephan Kinsella Property and Freedom Society • C4SIF.org 100 Years with Rothbard June 27, 2026 Porto, Portugal Libertarianism and Rothbard Libertarian since high school: I’ve been a libertarian since high school, about age 15. So 45 years. I became a Rothbard fan just a couple years later, as soon as I started reading him. Anti-IP since passing the patent bar: I have told people before that I have been an intellectual property attorney for about 33 years, since 1993 or so, and that I also have been opposed to IP for about the same amount of time. Rothbard’s Greatest Hits Rothbard chapter: In my chapter in our book presented here today, Rothbard at 100, I explain why Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe’s thought is so important to Austro-libertarian thought. There I highlighted some of his most important and interesting insights and writing. Which is convenient, since that is what I will do today. Think of it like a Rothbard greatest hits, or a mix tape, the sort I used to make for girlfriends. Or the time I took about 40 of the best songs of my favorite band, Rush, and made a mix of only the guitar solos. Coincidentally I’ve been a Rush fan since about age 15 too and in fact am going to see them next month in New York with two libertarian friends, one of whom is here today. Others’ Favorites With Rothbard we have an embarrassment of riches. If one was to try to survey his thought comprehensively and with any level of detail, it would take hours and even then would only be a summary presentation. I remember back in 2002 I was one of 9 faculty members presenting a full 5 days of lectures on Rothbard’s thought at the Mises Institute. Faculty, Rothbard Graduate Seminar, Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama (topics: Natural Law and Positive Law; Self Defense, Punishment, and Proportionality; The Theory of Contracts) (July 28–Aug. 2, 2002). He was so prolific and has such a treasure trove of works that appeal to different libertarians and Austrians. There are his most famous or popular works: Man, Economy, and State, Power and Market, For a New Liberty, The Ethics of Liberty, Conceived in Liberty, America’s Great Depression, What Has Government Done to Our Money?, An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, The Betrayal of the American Right, Anatomy of the State, The Progressive Era, “War Guilt in the Middle East”, etc. He also wrote a great deal in periodicals such as Libertarian Review, The Libertarian Forum, Reason Magazine, Liberty Magazine, New Individualist Review,...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 492. https://youtu.be/wORPhS6dTv4?si=m01gSOxqjHJ3vDEW This is my interview by Matthew Geiger of the Carl Menger Institute for Menger Institute Podcast #6 (recorded June 11, 2026). Shownotes and transcript below. Related tweet: at 13:20, defending the late Millennials and early Gen Z against snide criticisms of their plight--living with their parents, working at Starbucks, playing video games, not having kids, and so on--by the older generations who did this to them. Inflation, shitty schools, the debt… — Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) June 14, 2026 Related links TBD Shownotes (Grok) Podcast Show Notes Episode Title: Stephan Kinsella: From Patent Attorney to Anarcho-Libertarian Theorist – Property Rights, IP, Bitcoin, and the Future of Liberty Guest: Stephan Kinsella – Retired patent attorney, prolific libertarian writer, anarcho-libertarian legal theorist, and key figure associated with the Mises Institute and Property and Freedom Society. Episode Summary: Matthew Geiger sits down with Stephan Kinsella for a deep, wide-ranging conversation covering Kinsella’s personal journey into libertarianism, the philosophical foundations of libertarian thought, the critical importance of property rights, the case against intellectual property, generational challenges, technological disruption, foreign policy critiques, and an optimistic long-term vision for human freedom. Topics & Timestamps Introduction 0:00 Matthew Geiger welcomes listeners to the Menger Institute podcast and introduces Stephan Kinsella as a retired patent attorney and libertarian writer. Kinsella expresses his excitement about the conversation. How Stephan Kinsella Discovered Libertarianism 0:19 Matthew Geiger asks Kinsella to share his personal story, including his work with Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Kinsella recounts growing up in a conservative Louisiana household with little political or economic knowledge. A librarian gave him The Fountainhead in high school, sparking his interest in philosophy, individualism, and free-market economics. He read voraciously, quickly became a libertarian, then an Austrian, and eventually an anarchist during college and law school. He practiced oil & gas, international, and eventually patent law for 30 years while pursuing libertarian theory as an avocation, attending Mises Institute events since 1995. Libertarian vs. Anarchist: Definitions and Preferences 2:17 Matthew Geiger asks about the distinction between calling oneself a libertarian versus an anarchist. Kinsella explains different axes of libertarianism (activism vs. theory vs. personal conduct) and argues that libertarianism is a consistent extension of classical liberalism centered on self-ownership and Lockean property rights. He details why the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is actually a shorthand for a deeper cluster of property rules — homesteading, contract, and rectification — rather than a standalone axiom. He makes the case that the most consistent libertarians are anarchists, while minarchists are libertarians with an asterisk, and classical liberals are close intellectual cousins but not true libertarians. Matthew Geiger on Labels and Consistency 10:19 Matthew Geiger shares his own thoughts on the dilution of the term “libertarian” and his preference for “anarchist.” He discusses taking the label back from the left and echoes Hoppe’s view that the state is always socialist. Geiger and Kinsella agree that the most principled position is anarcho-libertarianism (or Austro-libertarianism), which recognizes the natural emergence of hierarchy, authority, norms, and social consequences in a free society — things many modern libertarians mistakenly reject. Younger Generations, Cultural Shifts, and Advice 13:23 Matthew Geiger asks about cultural and political trends among younger generations, referencing Javier Milei’s popularity, and requests advice for them. Kinsella sympathizes with Gen Z and Millennials, blaming previous generations for poor education, inflation, debt, and making normal life unaffordable. He advises libertarians to adopt a long-term perspective, read Albert Jay Nock’s Isaiah’s Job, focus on being part of the “remnant,” maintain balance in life (career, finances, family), and avoid burning out on short-term activism. He also reflects on how the libertarian movement has grown larger, more international, and more radical since the 2008 Ron Paul campaign, though newer adherents tend to be less well-read. Optimism About Technology, Fragmentation, and the Future 21:40 Matthew Geiger expresses optimism about technology, the internet, AI, and the erosion of state monopolies on force and information. Kinsella shares a cautious but ultimately hopeful outlook. He discusses the benefits of media fragmentation (less centralized propaganda), the logic of Bitcoin succeeding on its own merits rather than activism, and why liberty, if achieved, will be because it is natural and inevitable. He touches on the Fermi paradox and great filter while maintaining long-term civilizational optimism. Foreign Policy, Economics, and IP Imperialism 31:59 Matthew Geiger circles back to connections between culture, foreign policy, and monetary policy, critiquing U.S. aid to Israel and mercantilist justifications. Kinsella delivers a sharp analysis of Pax Americana, dollar hegemony, the military-industrial complex, and how the U.S. exports inflation while benefiting certain industries. He describes “IP imperialism” — patents and copyrights — as tools that allow Hollywood, Big Pharma, and defense contractors to extract wealth from the rest of the world. Stephan Kinsella on Decentralization, IP, and the Future of the State 36:14 The conversation continues with Matthew Geiger noting decentralization in music production. Kinsella explains how technology (internet, streaming, piracy) has already weakened copyright and predicts 3D printing, robotics, and AI could eventually undermine pharmaceutical patents. He launches into a passionate critique of intellectual property as one of the most anti-libertarian, innovation-harming policies in existence. He envisions technology enabling greater self-sufficiency, causing the state to gradually wither away like the British monarchy — becoming largely ceremonial while private enterprise and civil society take over most functions. Kinsella ends on a hopeful, if long-term, note about humanity maturing beyond tribalism and primitive superstitions. Closing Thoughts and Resources 55:08 Stephan Kinsella promotes the Property and Freedom Society’s annual conference in Turkey, the new book Rothbard at 100, and his “Universal Principles of Liberty” project (a concise statement of libertarian legal principles). Matthew Geiger thanks Kinsella and expresses interest in attending future events. Links & Resources: Stephan Kinsella: stephankinsella.com Property and Freedom Society: propertyandfreedom.org Rothbard at 100 (pre-order available) Mises Institute Episode Length: Approximately 58 minutes This episode offers a rich blend of personal history, rigorous libertarian theory, sharp cultural commentary, and forward-looking optimism. Highly recommended for anyone interested in Austrian economics, property rights, critiques of intellectual property, and the future of freedom. Transcript Introduction 0:00 Matthew Geiger: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the Menger Institute podcast. We have a very special guest. We have with us a retired patent attorney and libertarian writer, Stephan Kinsella. Welcome to the Menger Institute podcast. Stephan Kinsella: Thanks for having me. Yeah, I'm very excited to talk to you. How Stephan Kinsella Discovered Libertarianism 0:19 Matthew Geiger: I want to begin, I think, with how you got into libertarianism, your work with Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and yeah if you could tell us your story. Stephan Kinsella: Well I am, as you mentioned, retired. I did patent law, I did various types of law for about 30 years in private practice in the US: oil and gas law first and then international law and then patent law. So I've done a variety. In the later part a lot of high-tech law. But on the side, I also did a lot of libertarian writing and thinking because I've been interested in it since about high school. I am from Louisiana. I just came from a conservative household but had zero political or economic knowledge or even historical knowledge. But a librarian gave me The Fountainhead to read in high school and I read it and that got me interested in philosophy and free market economics and individualism. So I started reading voraciously and very soon became a libertarian and then of course reading the Austrians like Mises and Rothbard and the others pretty soon became an Austrian libertarian and then an anarchist. And I've been like that since college or law school. In law school and after I started trying to expand or develop the theories I've been reading to make some progress where I thought I could. And so that's sort of been my avocation all these years as a lawyer and now it's my main hobby or interest. So that's how I got interested in it and I started attending Mises Institute events in 1995 and did that for many years. Libertarian vs. Anarchist: Definitions and Preferences 2:17 Matthew Geiger: This may be a question of semantics but you say libertarian and I want to know what your distinction is or preference for describing yourself as libertarian or anarchist. Stephan Kinsella: Yes, I've always been, so in my view there are two types of libertarians in the sense of your interest. One is activism, that is being part of some movement trying to make change, and then the other is just being interested in the ideas, and then the other is just being a libertarian, like acting in a peaceful way and following those rules....

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 483. I delivered the following lecture yesterday: “The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property,” Loyola Economics Club and Louisiana Mu chapter of Omicron Delta Epsilon, Loyola University—New Orleans, Miller Hall (12:30 pm–1:45 pm, Feb. 24, 2026). Hosts were the aforementioned Econ club and econ honor society, as well as Walter Block and Leo Krasnozhon. (( Leo Krasnozhon, “Walter Block on Externality, Public Goods, and Voluntary Government“ (pp. 391–399). )) Audio for the Q&A portion was poor due to some technical mishaps, but has been boosted as much as possible. Slides streamed below. Pictures, transcript and shownotes below. https://youtu.be/rrFHYJ53C8g Related: Locke, Smith, Marx; the Labor Theory of Property and the Labor Theory of Value; and Rothbard, Gordon, and Intellectual Property KOL472 | “What Is Property? And What Is Not? — Part 2 — Fireside Chat on Intellectual Property with Albert Lu,” Capitalism & Morality (Vancouver) KOL471 | “What Is Property? And What Is Not? — Part 1,” Capitalism & Morality (Vancouver) The Problem with Intellectual Property (2026) Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) Photos Shownotes (Grok) Shownotes: Stephan Kinsella – “The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property” Loyola University New Orleans Economics Club & Omicron Delta Epsilon February 24, 2026 (KOL 483 podcast) Approximate timestamps based on transcript pacing (~70-minute total runtime) 00:00 – Welcome and Introduction Leo Krasnozhon opens the event, welcoming attendees despite a boil advisory and introducing Stephan Kinsella as a retired patent lawyer, LSU alumnus (undergrad and law school), and longtime Mises Institute affiliate who has collaborated with Walter Block. He highlights the topic of intellectual property rights, admits his own limited knowledge of it, notes the co-sponsorship with Omicron Delta Epsilon (with chapter president Emily Tion present), and passes the floor to Tyler, president of the Economics Club, to officially begin. 01:25 – Brief Co-Sponsor Welcome An Omicron Delta Epsilon representative offers a short welcome and mentions that a Q&A session will follow the presentation. 01:35 – Stephan Kinsella: Personal Background and Path to Anti-IP Views Kinsella thanks the hosts—Omicron Delta Epsilon, the Loyola Economics Club, Walter Block, and Leo Krasnozhon—and recalls his long acquaintance with Block (both former Mises senior fellows). He recounts his career: beginning law practice around 1992 in Houston (initially oil and gas), shifting to intellectual property and patent law, with stints in Philadelphia before returning home. As a longtime libertarian, Austrian economist, and anarchist, he initially assumed intellectual property was legitimate property, partly influenced by Ayn Rand’s support for it. However, he found her arguments unpersuasive—especially the fact that patents and copyrights expire while physical property like land and cars does not. When he became both a patent attorney and a libertarian scholar, he set out to develop a strong defense of IP but ultimately concluded the system is deeply flawed and should be abolished. He reached this view around 1994, shortly after passing the patent bar, and initially kept quiet while practicing, later speaking openly once he realized his professional peers were indifferent to his opinions. ~03:28 – Talk Overview and Recommended Readings The presentation is titled “The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property,” deliberately echoing Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s The Economics and Ethics of Private Property. Kinsella plans to speak for roughly 30–40 minutes, leaving ample time for questions. He acknowledges the topic’s breadth—having previously taught a six-week online Mises Academy course on it in 2011—and notes his deep interest in legal theory, IP theory, Louisiana civil law (where he authored a civil law dictionary), and international law, all interconnected through an economic lens. He recommends his own published works (shown on a slide) as primary sources, along with Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine’s empirical book Against Intellectual Monopoly for further reading. ~05:02 – Defining Intellectual Property and Scope of Critique Intellectual property refers to legal protections for “products of the mind.” The two primary statutory forms are patents and copyrights, which are legislated monopolies rather than common-law institutions. Other types that emerged from common law include trademarks, trade secrets, and defamation (which Kinsella argues belongs in the IP category because reputation rights protected by defamation law suffer from the same conceptual flaws as trademark rights). More recent or special-interest forms include boat-hull designs, semiconductor mask works, personality/name/image/likeness rights (now prominent for college athletes), moral rights, and database rights. Proposals to expand IP continue in areas such as fashion, hyperlinks, and newspaper headlines. The talk focuses primarily on patents and copyrights as the most prominent and damaging forms. ~06:26 – Constitutional Foundation and Historical Origins In the United States, patents and copyrights derive from the 1789 IP Clause (Article I, Section 8), which empowers Congress “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” by granting exclusive rights to authors and inventors for limited times. In 1789 terminology, “Science” referred to systematic bodies of knowledge (including literary arts), while “useful Arts” meant artisan inventions—meanings essentially reversed from today. Congress acted quickly, enacting the first modern patent and copyright statutes in 1790. The following year (1791), the Bill of Rights was added; the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press creates an obvious tension with copyright enforcement (e.g., judicial blocks on publishing copies of Harry Potter), though courts have not recognized an irreconcilable conflict. Historically, patents began as royal monopoly letters in Europe granting exclusive privileges to court favorites, leading to abuses that prompted England’s 1623 Statute of Monopolies (which curtailed most monopolies but preserved them for new inventions). Copyright arose from the printing press threatening state and church control of information, resulting in the Stationers’ Company monopoly and, after its expiration, the 1710 Statute of Anne, which shifted rights to authors. Both systems originated in protectionism, mercantilism, and control of thought. ~10:40 – Early American View: Monopolies, Not Natural Property The framers treated patents and copyrights as temporary monopoly privileges, not natural property rights—a fact often misrepresented by modern proponents (e.g., Objectivists such as Adam Mossoff). Thomas Jefferson, writing to James Madison during the Bill of Rights drafting process, expressed concern about the IP Clause and suggested constitutional language limiting such monopolies to short, fixed terms—language that, if adopted, would have prevented today’s extensions (e.g., life of the author plus 70 years). The purpose was narrowly pragmatic: temporary incentives for arts and sciences, not recognition of inherent ownership. ~12:37 – The 19th-Century Anti-Patent Movement By the 1850s, amid expanding world trade and the industrial revolution, free-market economists increasingly criticized patents and copyrights as anticompetitive government monopolies inconsistent with free trade. A global anti-patent movement gained momentum; some countries repealed or refrained from enacting patent laws. The push collapsed after the 1873 Long Depression (a prolonged worldwide recession then called “the great depression”), which soured public opinion on free trade and allowed the patent system to persist—representing a missed historical opportunity to eliminate it. ~14:01 – Contemporary Arguments For and Against IP Today’s defenses of IP fall into two main categories: utilitarian/consequentialist (economic/empirical) and deontological/principled (rights-based), with a lesser-known Hegelian personality theory occasionally invoked. Common myths include claims that IP protects the “little guy,” forces disclosure of secret inventions, constitutes a natural or founder-intended property right, explains Western wealth, or is essential for books, art, and inventions—none of which hold up historically or empirically. Euphemisms such as “stealing,” “piracy,” and “theft” obscure that infringement differs fundamentally from physical theft. ~16:10 – Absurd and Weak Pro-IP Arguments Kinsella dismisses several particularly weak claims: a patent attorney’s assertion that the Swiss patent office indirectly enabled Einstein’s theory of relativity; William Shughart’s argument that lack of international copyright forced Charles Dickens to tour the U.S., catch a cold, and die; and hyperbolic equivalences of anti-IP views to support for pedophilia, stage collapses, baby-stealing, or slavery. He also notes confusion over intangibles (e.g., fiat money is intangible, but gold-based money was not). ~18:18 – The Utilitarian/Economic Case Examined Proponents argue that without IP, markets would underproduce creative works and inventions because copiers free-ride on expensive R&D, so temporary monopolies allow cost recovery via monopoly pricing. Some acknowledge this slows idea diffusion but claim it ultimately produces more ideas overall. Yet empirical evidence is lacking: Fritz Machlup’s 1958 Senate-commissioned study found no certainty of net social benefit and deemed it irresponsible to create a patent system from scratch; George Priest (1986) stated economists know almost nothing about patents’ welfare effects; 2004 French economists said cost-benefit analysis remains impossible; and Boldrin & Levine (2013) concluded there is no empirical support for the cla

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 387. This is a classic debate on intellectual property between Wendy McElroy and J. Neil Schulman† at the Libertarian Supper Club in Westwood (Los Angeles), California, in 1983. McElroy takes the anti-IP side and Schulman argues for IP. I don't appear in this episode but I thought my listeners might find it of interest. https://youtu.be/-_Nyaav6Js0 I wrote about this on Mises Daily, as “The Great IP Debate of 1983,” Mises Daily (July 18, 2011), which concerns the then recently-found audio of that debate, which was put up as a Mises podcast and is now also hosted at Mises.org. It's a fascinating listen. As the Mises blurb about it reads, "In this wonderful debate, we find the whole of the theoretical apparatus of the anti-IP case presented with precision and eloquence." This was near the beginning of the modern libertarian anti-IP movement, pioneered by McElroy and Sam Konkin (see references below). Related (by me unless noted otherwise): McElroy: “On the Subject of Intellectual Property”: this appears to match at least part of Wendy's initial presentation in the debate Schulman, "My Unfinished 30-Year-Old Debate with Wendy McElroy" McElroy, "Contra Copyright, Again" Classical Liberals and Anarchists on Intellectual Property (discussing LeFevre) The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism KOL208 | Conversation with Schulman about Logorights and Media-Carried Property “Introduction” and chapter “Conversation with Schulman about Logorights and Media-Carried Property” [both available here] in J. Neil Schulman, Origitent: Why Original Content is Property (Steve Heller Publishing, 2018) Libertarian Sci-Fi Authors and Copyright versus Libertarian IP Abolitionists Replies to Neil Schulman and Neil Smith re IP Query for Schulman on Patents and Logorights On J. Neil Schulman’s Logorights Kinsella v. Schulman on Logorights and IP Schulman: “If you copy my novel, I’ll kill you” Schulman: Kinsella is “the foremost enemy of property rights” Reply to Schulman on the State, IP, and Carson

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 386. I was a guest on Toward Anarchy with host Michael Storm on July 3, 2022. His shownotes (Youtube channel): Anarchist, Author, Lawyer, Electrical Engineer, Stephan Kinsella discusses the Economics and Morality of Intellectual Property with me. We'll get into the value, subjective and objective, of Crypto-Currencies, NFTs and other Digital things. Find out more about Stephan and dive into the large body of work he has from books to audio and video on topics from the law to economics to social issues and of course Intellectual Property at StephanKinsella.com. Continue your trip down the Kinsella information highway at Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom where you can find a growing collection of work aimed at proving the government impedes innovation and creativity with laws and taxes and regulations and all manner of interventions into our personal and economic lives. Related: A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 385. This is an audio version of my article "Goods, Scarce and Nonscarce" (with Jeffrey A. Tucker), Mises Daily (Aug. 25, 2010). Narrated by Bob Reilly. N.b.: the narrator mispronounces some words, e.g. he pronounces Menger as "Minn-jer" and causally as "casually". https://youtu.be/jINbQrRq-g0

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 384. My appearance on Ernie Hancock's show at PorcFest 2022, recorded June 23, 2022. Episode. Related: KOL307 | Ernie Hancock Freedom’s Phoenix on IP in the Internet Age KOL272 | Ernie Hancock Freedom’s Phoenix on Reputation Rights, Defamation, IP KOL229 | Ernie Hancock Show: IP Debate with Alan Korwin KOL133 | IP Bonanza on Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock KOL089 | Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock radio: Intellectual Property, L. Neil Smith KOL060 | Guest on Ernest Hancock’s Declare Your Independence radio show: intellectual property and libertarianism (2010)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 383. I was an impromptu guest at the FreeTalkLive tent at PorcFest 2022 yesterday (June 23, 2022), with hosts Patrick Motorist and Tone Vays, discussing the Open Crypto Foundation, the Reno Reset, and related matters. Related: KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) https://youtu.be/v1E4i3od_T4?t=1954  

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 382. I was an impromptu guest at the FreeTalkLive tent at PorcFest 2022 today (June 23, 2022), with host Mark Edge (and Aria) discussing corporations and limited liability, and also the recent "Reno Reset" at the Libertarian Party's 2022 Convention in Reno. Related: Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 381. This is my discussion with Eric John on Twitter Spaces, on June 18, 2022, about intellectual property—its genesis, common fallacies and misunderstandings, the labor theory of property, libertarian "creationism," and so on. We discussed ownership of information and touched briefly on ownership of bitcoin. Related: Against Intellectual Property (including Selected Supplementary Material) ——, “Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward” KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 380. Tom Jump, of the TJump Youtube channel, had me on to discuss anarcho-capitalism and related issues. I was not familiar with him or what position he would be coming from; turns out he's a self-professed "centrist liberal" but was very intelligent, and surprisingly civil despite espousing some views completely contrary to libertarianism and my own beliefs. https://youtu.be/wRAJJC3TleI

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 379. This is my umpteenth appearance on the Tom Woods show: from Ep. 2145 Does Intellectual Property Exist? From his shownotes: Is it possible that we’ve been snookered into believing in a nonsensical concept? Is it possible to “own” an idea? Stephan Kinsella walks us through copyright, patent, trademarks, and trade secrets from a libertarian perspective, and also considers the utilitarian arguments for intellectual property. https://youtu.be/htD61sX9LkM Related: Against Intellectual Property “Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward" Against Intellectual Monopoly, by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine; click here for a PDF A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP “Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright” “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright” “Innovations that Thrive without IP” “Examples of Ways Content Creators Can Profit Without Intellectual Property” Do Business Without Intellectual Property (Liberty.me, 2014) (PDF)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 378. [Note: I mistakenly posted this as a blog post instead of a podcast entry on March 28, 2022; please see comments on the original post here.] I had some exchanges with Voice of Reason in the comments section for a Mises.org article on IP a few weeks ago about intellectual property so we decided to have a discussion. Here it is. FWIW. (See the comments section of the Mises.org article titled Why Intellectual Property Isn't Necessary to Reward Innovation.) If anyone has links to the original thread send them on and I will include them. https://youtu.be/Rmeuh3L5NqU  

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 482. Audio version of “A Tour Through Walter Block’s Oeuvre,” in Walter Block – Anarcho-Capitalist Austro-Libertarian, Elvira Nica & Gheorghe H. Popescu, eds. (Addleton Academic Publishers, 2025). Thanks to George Besada. Made this audio version:https://t.co/dxc81hv00Z — Jorge Besada (@hayekian) February 19, 2026 https://rumble.com/v75zpme-a-tour-through-walter-blocks-oeuvre.-by-stephan-kinsella..html  

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 377. I appeared last night (March. 15, 2022) on NWJ as we are considering a possible debate between me and David Friedman on the foundations of libertarianism. The original notion suggested was deontology vs. consequentialism but as I was not sure this is appropriate, we had a discussion about this. Along the way we discussed many other topics. Not sure if the debate will take place or makes sense, but this discussion was fun. https://youtu.be/C8JAZq_QYuo See Jose's subsequent discussion with David Friedman here. David discusses IP around 28 minutes. Also: David Friedman on Intellectual Property; and David Friedman on the “Problem” of Piracy; David Friedman on Copyright; David Friedman: Current Experiments in Self Publishing. https://youtu.be/yYzuAPpoj9g

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 376. This is my appearance on Unorthodox Libertarian Theology, with host Rajat Sirkanungo. We discussed a variety of issues. My copy: https://youtu.be/0Qv-ocKUkec His copy: https://youtu.be/CqfueRgLNNQ

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 375. This is my appearance on Ep.55 of Mentally Unscripted. Recorded Feb. 8, 2022; released Feb. 10, 2022. Transcript below. https://youtu.be/8SrUo79eiLk Related links: Examples of Ways Content Creators Can Profit Without Intellectual Property The Creator-Endorsed Mark as an Alternative to Copyright Do Business Without Intellectual Property (PDF) KOL 037 | Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory Locke, Smith, Marx; the Labor Theory of Property and the Labor Theory of Value; and Rothbard, Gordon, and Intellectual Property Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright Libertarian Answer Man: Self-ownership for slaves and Crusoe; and Yiannopoulos on Accurate Analysis and the term “Property” Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes Where does IP Rank Among the Worst State Laws? Patent vs. Copyright: Which is Worse? On the 3D printing threat to patent law Copyrighting all the melodies to avoid accidental infringement | Damien Riehl (my comments debunking it on Facebook) Lost in Space: The Copyright Dilemma Monkey selfie copyright dispute David Koepsell, Who Owns You? The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes (review; blog) Conversation with an author about copyright and publishing in a free society (re JK Rowling and Harry Potter movies) Prohibitions of anti-circumvention technology: Anti-circumvention (wikipedia) What is DMCA anti-circumvention? EFF Asks Appeals Court to Rule DMCA Anti-Circumvention Provisions Violate First Amendment From their shownotes: This week, Stefan and Scott welcome Stephan Kinsella to Mentally Unscripted. Stephan is a brilliant, articulate libertarian legal scholar who explains why the mainstream notion that intellectual property spurs innovation is wrong. He dives in by telling us why IP laws are simply government-issued monopolies that actually impede innovation. He explains why removing IP laws would make us more prosperous. And closes by discussing other innovative ways creators can profit without protectionist laws. As always, we're building a community around Mentally Unscripted. So, share this episode with your friends and interact with us at MentallyUnscripted.com. And remember, the conclusion you reach is less important than the process you follow to get there. Guest Information Stephan’s Website Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Libertarian Theory and Applications Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom Top Takeaways Intellectual Property (IP) is a body of law whose stated purpose is to protect a specific type of private property, such as inventions and creative works but is really a grant of monopoly power by the state. Instead of spurring innovation and creativity, the monopolistic nature of IP laws stifles new creative output. IP laws could be repealed today, and entrepreneurs would fill the void with new, innovative ways to earn money from their creations. Comments or Questions on this episode? Join the conversation at the Mentally Unscripted Substack. TRANSCRIPT "Transcript: Why IP Laws Destroy Innovation and How Creatives Can Profit Without Them" Stephan Kinsella, Mentally Unscripted (Feb. 10, 2022) 00:00:15 SCOTT GRAYSON: Hi there, everybody.  My name is Scott Grayson, and you’re listening to Mentally Unscripted, the podcast where my cohost, Stefan, and I inspire you to think more clearly and have better conversations about the world.  When you ride along with us, we’ll take you on a journey that will show you there’s always more than one way to look at an issue.  You’ll learn to think critically about what you see and hear and how to challenge the narratives that those in power want you to believe.  You won’t always agree with us, but that’s the point: to learn that we can have deep conversations and learn from each other no matter how different we are. 00:00:48 This week, I find myself outnumbered by Stephans as we welcome Stephan Kinsella to Mentally Unscripted.  Stephan in a brilliant, articulate, libertarian legal scholar who explains why the mainstream notion that intellectual property spurs innovation is wrong.  He dives in by telling us why IP laws are simply government-issued monopolies that actually impede innovation.  He then explains why removing IP laws would make us more prosperous, and he closes out the podcast by discussing other innovative ways creators can profit without protectionist laws.  As always, we’re building a community around Mentally Unscripted, so share this episode with your friends and interact with us at MentallyUnscripted.com.  And remember, the conclusion you reach is less important than the process you followed to get there. 00:01:35 All right, everybody, this is Episode 55 of Mentally Unscripted, and this is a very special episode because I never thought in my entire life that I would be outnumbered by Stephans, and yet I am here.  I’ve got two Stephans on the call with us.  First is Stefan cohost.  Stefan cohost, how are you doing? 00:01:54 STEFAN: I’m doing well, can’t complain.  I feel a little bit of competition here with the name, but I’ll survive. 00:01:59 SCOTT GRAYSON: Awesome, and the other Stephan on the call or on the podcast here with us is Stephan Kinsella.  Mr. Kinsella is someone I am very thrilled to have on.  He is a libertarian legal scholar, a prolific writer, prolific podcaster, prolific podcast guest.  He’s all over the place.  I heard you, Mr. Kinsella—I don’t know—three or four years ago on the Tom Woods Show, heard you talking about how you’re an anti-IP attorney, and I just thought that was great.  I loved it, and also the director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, so happy to have you here.  Anything else to the—you want to add to the bio there? 00:02:40 STEPHAN KINSELLA: No, that covers it. 00:02:42 SCOTT GRAYSON: Awesome.  I wanted to have you on because I’ve been—like I said, I’ve been reading your stuff for a while, and I’m really interested in this idea of IP law.  Now, I’m an attorney, but I don’t know a lot about IP.  I know just enough to probably give people bad advice, and that’s it.  But I really like the idea—I’m really into the idea of how we can function in a society where we limit the amount of involvement of the state.  And I think IP law and the way that you’ve been writing about it and talking about it I think is an excellent way of showing people just how we can limit the reach of the state while still maintaining an orderly society and still allowing people to profit off of their hard work without us degenerating into some Mad Max-style, dystopian movie-type thing.  So let’s just kick it off for—I think, most of our listeners probably are not legal experts, so what is IP law just generally? 00:03:39 STEPHAN KINSELLA: It’s a specialty area of law, which includes patent law and copyright law and also trademark law and a few other things, which are not as well-known like trade secret and some other areas but primarily patent and copyright.  So patent is the type of law that gives inventors some kind of rights in their inventions, which are like practical processes or machines.  And copyright is a law that gives authors the rights in original creative works like novels or paintings or movies or songs, so that’s what IP law is. 00:04:16 And it originates in two statutes in the US, in the federal statutes, which were first enacted right after the Constitution was ratified in 1789, I think, around 1790 or ’91, the first two laws.  And they traced their origins back to some practices and statutes in Europe such as the Statute of Monopolies in Britan in 1623 and the Statute of Anne, and the Statute of Monopolies was kind of the origin of modern copyright law—I’m sorry—modern patent law. 00:04:47 And you can see even in the title, the British Parliament understood that patents were monopoly grants, which is one reason that we libertarians should oppose them, and the people that call them property rights are being a little bit dishonest and disingenuous.  And copyright comes from the Statute of Anne of 1710, and the purpose of that—well, that flowed from the attempt of the government and the church to stop people from printing works that they didn’t want them printing after the printing press came out. 00:05:18 So the origins of copyright are in censorship by the state and the church, and the origins of patents are in the grant of monopoly privileges by the state.  So they’re both rooted in total un-libertarian and unjust state practices and policies, so it’s kind of ironic that so-called advocates of the free market and private property rights support them under this label of intellectual property.  Originally, these laws weren’t called property rights at all.  They were never understood to be property rights.  Even people that were somewhat in support of them understood that they were derogations from the free market and private property rights and natural property rights. 00:05:56 But they thought they were necessary for a certain purpose like to incentivize innovation or something like that, but they were under no illusions that they were anything but a temporary grant of monopoly privilege by the state.  And when the free market economists in the 1800s started criticizing these laws saying, what the hell are we doing granting these monopoly privileges?  We should just get rid of them because they are contrary to the free market and private property rights and contracts and all this. 00:06:20 The defenders—by then, there had been entrenched industries that had grown up that were dependent upon these laws like the publishing industry, book publishers, and an increasing number of manufacturing industries

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 374. This is my appearance on Episode 1 of The Great Fiction Podcast, hosted by PraxBen and JungYin An. Recorded Jan. 3, 2022; released Feb. 4, 2022. This is the fourth or so podcast for which I was the first guest, the others being KOL078 | Lions of Liberty Podcast Inaugural Episode: Intellectual Property, KOL244 | “YOUR WELCOME” with Michael Malice Ep. 001: Intellectual Property, Prostate Cancer, and KOL347 | This Time I’m Curious Ep. 1: The Libertarian Movement, AI Rights, UFOs, Music, Movies, Alcohol. Youtube: https://youtu.be/i5p8wlu2xmQ Original youtube: https://youtu.be/-Mq5czGnhHQ

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 373. This is an audiobook version of my Against Intellectual Property. Narrated by RetroGames HQ. An earlier version is here: KOL008 | Against Intellectual Property (audiobook). Others audio versions of my work at https://stephankinsella.com/media/#audio-books. Youtube playlist; first Youtube: https://youtu.be/JCabAGM-e_s

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 372. Matthew Sands of the Nation of Sanity project (http://www.nationsofsanity.com/), which aims to promote the Non-Aggression Principle as a universal peace agreement, and I discussed various matters of libertarian legal theory, including the Rothbard-Evers title-transfer theory of contract versus contract as "binding promises" and the problem with the idea of "breach of contract"; and related matters such as burdens and standards of proof; civil vs. criminal law and the unity of the law; punishment, restitution and ostracism, and the like. (See previous episode with Matthew, KOL362 | California Gold #6, with Matt Sands: Defining Libertarianism, Anarchism and Voluntaryism.) Youtube: https://youtu.be/YzMSm9TdDRQ

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 371. This is my presentation (audio only) at the Austrian Economics Discord Conference: “The Enduring Importance of the Austrian School,” Austrian Economics Discord Server (Jan. 8–9, 2022). My presentation was “Law: Decentralized and Centralized" (Jan. 8, 2022). Other speakers included: - Jeff Deist - Walter Block - Peter Klein - Per Bylund - Patrick Newman - Jonathan Newman - Matthew McCaffrey Youtube: https://youtu.be/2_w1_9uQc74 Original Youtube Related links: Kinsella, “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995) Summary version: “Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010) Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter v. the Field Codes (Oct. 14, 2009) KOL221 | Mises Brasil: State Legislation Versus Law and Liberty KOL368 | Legislation vs. Law, with Robert Breedlove, of the “What is Money” Show KOL199 | Tom Woods Show: The State’s Corruption of Private Law, or We Don’t Need No Legislature KOL001 | “The (State’s) Corruption of (Private) Law” (PFS 2012) KOL129 | Speech to Montessori Students: “The Story of Law: What Is Law, and Where Does it Come From?” Further resources: Is English Common Law Libertarian? (Powerpoint; PDF) Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the Law Watson, Alan, The Importance of “Nutshells” Herman, Shael, The Louisiana Civil Code: A European Legacy for the United States Giovanni Sartori, Liberty and Law Alan Watson, Roman Law and Comparative Law The Story of Law, by John M. Zane (I haven’t finished it yet but liked what read so far) (also online) Arthur Hogue, The Origins of the Common Law

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 370. This is my appearance in an "Ask Me Anything" for the Lib-Right League Discord Server, with host Logan. Recorded Jan. 6, 2022. We discussed a variety of topics. My youtube: Their youtube:  

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 369. Whereupon I do the rare original episode. In November I  debated Richard Epstein in New York, at the Soho Forum, on intellectual property (patent and copyright). My friend Greg Morin (website; Twitter; Mises) accompanied me and we had a great time in NYC. In this episode, Greg and I do a post-mortem about the debate and touch on IP topics I didn't have time to address in the main debate. Some pix below. Related links: KOL364 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Richard Epstein: Patent and Copyright Law Should Be Abolished KOL366 | NFTS, Soho Forum Debate, Intellectual Property, Etc. on Repeal the 20th Century https://youtu.be/1qpB7cvtpL0 Some photos from the NYC trip below:

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 368. This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove's What Is Money podcast, Ep. WiM099 (Youtube channel). We discussed legislation vs. (private) law—Centralized Law vs Decentralized Law, or as Hoppe refers to legislation, "democratic law-making". From Robert's Episode notes: "Stephan Kinsella joins me to discuss the nature of centralized law legislated by fiat in comparison with decentralized law discovered through the observation of human action across time." Youtube: https://youtu.be/msj6ReWhzkk Youtube outline/time stamps: 00:00:00 “What is Money?” Intro 00:00:08 Exploring the Meaning of Legislative “Law” 00:09:40 Possession is 9/10ths of the Law 00:16:43 Corruption in Law Making & Money Printing 00:20:30 Is Coercion Inherent to Fiat? 00:26:44 Bitcoin Replacing Fiat Standards? 00:30:00 The Basics of Human Action and Property 00:36:17 Is Bitcoin Property? 00:44:25 NYDIG 00:45:34 Does the Nature of Legal Disputes Change Under a Bitcoin Standard? 00:51:42 Custodial Aspects of the Fractional Reserve Banking System [see also my post The Great Fractional Reserve/Freebanking Debate] 00:57:49 Bitcoin Lending & the Threat of Rehypothecation 01:03:25 Does Bitcoin Disincentivize High Risk Human Action 01:08:37 Morality Under a Bitcoin Standard vs a Fiat Standard 01:18:11 Centralized Legislation Contributes to Uncertainty Related: Kinsella, “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995) Summary version: “Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010) Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter v. the Field Codes (Oct. 14, 2009) The Great Fractional Reserve/Freebanking Debate (Jan. 29, 2016) Jesus Huerta de Soto's Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, esp. ch. 1 (uses Roman law concepts to properly analyze fractional-reserve banking) KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) Paul Cantor, Hyperinflation and Hyperreality: Thomas Mann in Light of Austrian Economics

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 481. This is my appearance on Adam Haman’s podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack), a special 200th Episode Livestream Celebration! It features regular hosts Adam Haman and Tyrone, and other previous guests (recorded Feb. 7, 2026; official episode: Replay of 200th Episode Livestream Celebration! | Hn 200). I and some other previous guests appeared. (( KOL478 | Haman Nature Hn 185: The Universal Principles of Liberty KOL469 | Haman Nature Hn 149: Tabarrok on Patents, Price Controls, and Drug Reimportation KOL461 | Haman Nature Hn 119: Atheism, Objectivism & Artificial Intelligence KOL456 | Haman Nature Hn 109: Philosophy, Rights, Libertarian and Legal Careers KOL432 | Haman Nature 0027: School Choice “Debate” KOL425 | Haman Nature Ep. 4: Stephan Kinsella dismantles “intellectual” property KOL423 | Haman Nature Ep. 2: Getting Argumentative )) Shownotes and transcript below. Inspired by Jeffrey Tucker, I decided to dress up. Adam's shownotes: This is a replay of the Feb. 7th, 2026 YouTube livestream of the Haman Nature 200th episode celebration event with enhanced audio and edited for a more enjoyable viewing experience. Adam Haman and Tyrone the Porcupine Hobo were proud to be joined by Scott Horton, Stephan Kinsella, Doc Dixon, Brian O'Leary, Domenic Scarcella, Mark Maresca, Mark Puls, and Jason Lawler. Plus, fun, games, the premier of a Haman Nature Records music video, and much more! Enjoy! 00:00 -- Intro. Technology is hard, we have a very rough start, but perseverance pays off! 01:20 -- Banter and brilliance from our special guests on the situation in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 35:55 -- Debuting our new game: A Warmonger Says What? 48:08 -- Another guest joins the show! 54:35 -- Debut of "The Devil is a Democrat" music video by Haman Nature Records! 1:02:55 -- Banter and brilliance from our special guests on the recent Epstein files dump. 1:32:30 -- Adam makes a big podcasting "reveal"! Also, introducing our brand new series: "It's Always Anarchy in Philadelphia!", which leads into a brief discussion of economics -- which is the point! 1:53:06 -- Some closing banter, thoughts, comments, and testimonials. Plus, what's going on with Bitcoin, gold, and silver prices? Are these assets, or could they be money in the future? 2:08:17 -- Outro. Thanks for watching Haman Nature, and here's to another 200 episodes! Shownotes (Grok) Opening & Technical Difficulties [3:02 – ~8:42] Hosts Adam Haymon and Tyrone struggle with StreamYard/YouTube live setup. Multiple failed starts, audio muting issues, and a full restart after realizing the stream isn't public. Guests (including Stephan Kinsella and Mark Maresca) briefly appear during troubleshooting. Take Two – Official Welcome & Guest Introductions [~8:42 – ~17:00] Successful restart. Adam and Tyrone celebrate episode 200 (take two). Guests introduced: Stephan Kinsella (dressed in full “libertard” regalia with Mises hat and pipe), Scott Horton, Mark Maresca (White Pill Box), Brian O'Leary (Natural Order podcast co-host), and later arrivals. Banter about episode counts, outfits, technical woes, and congratulations. Minneapolis / ICE Raids / Immigration Discussion [~17:00 – ~38:00] Tyrone (Minneapolis resident) gives local perspective on recent ICE incidents. Guests share views: Mark Maresca → white-pill take on accelerating public skepticism Scott Horton → partisanship, new footage reinforcing biases, panic in police shootings Stefan Kinsella → due process, nullification, decentralization, peaceful alternatives to force Brian O'Leary → economic incentives over coercion Heavy focus on Minneapolis events, state nullification, federal overreach, and libertarian principles. Viewer Comments, Guest Rotations & Banter [~38:00 – ~1:00:00] Reading sarcastic and positive YouTube comments from past episodes. Guests come and go (Scott Horton exits, Mark Polles / “Mark P” joins, Jason from If By Whiskey joins). More congratulations, plugs for guests’ shows/Substacks, merch mentions (shop.humanature.com), and light roasting. Game Segment: “A Warmonger Says What?” [~47:00 – ~1:00:00] World premiere game. Panel (Stefan, Mark M, Mark Mo, Brian) guesses who said infamous political quotes. Chat players compete for $25 Human Nature merch gift cards. Questions cover MTG, Trump/Biden gaffes, Rick Perry, Bernie/Obama/Hillary, etc. Winners announced later. Break, Ads & Music Video World Premiere [~1:00:00 – ~1:16:00] Short break with organic ads (Scott Horton Academy, Swan Brothers merch). World premiere of Human Nature Records parody music video: “The Devil is a Republican” (Grok-rewritten Tom MacDonald-style lyrics set to music by Tyrone). Full performance played. New Segment Debut: “It’s Always Anarchy in Philadelphia” [~1:56:00 – ~2:19:00] Brand new recurring segment announced. Uses clips from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia to explain Austrian/Misesian economic concepts. First clip: Season episode discussing couch rental interest, inflation, wages, and “nut.” Stefan Kinsella gives detailed breakdown: time preference, interest rates, monetary vs. price inflation, Fed manipulation, sound money, Bitcoin vs. gold, fractional reserve debates, free banking vs. Rothbardian views. Closing Thanks, Final Comments & Sign-off [~2:19:00 – 2:48:00] Guests give on-camera praise for the show (Mark Maresca, Brian O’Leary, Mark Polles, Dominic Scarcella, Stefan Kinsella). Brief Bitcoin/gold/silver/fiat collapse discussion. Final plugs, merch reminder, “The Devil is a Republican” video tease. Emotional thanks to guests and audience for 200 episodes. Ends with signature “Heat” send-off. Total runtime ≈ 2 hours 45 minutes (including breaks and music video). Episode highlights: technical comedy, deep libertarian discussion, game debut, parody music video premiere, and first episode of the new economics-through-pop-culture segment. Transcript (youtube; Grok assist) Human Nature – 200th Episode Celebration (Full Compiled Corrected Transcript – From Beginning to End) Spelling errors corrected, filler words like "uh" or "um" removed (without paraphrasing or altering meaning/structure), occasional topical descriptive headers added, speaker names when identifiable (or "[Unknown Speaker]" if not), timestamps after each header and speaker change. Names standardized: "Human Nature" / "Adam Haman" / "Stephan Kinsella". [3:02 – Opening Title & Initial Technical Chaos] Intro Voiceover Human Nature, a journey in search of a peaceful and prosperous society with human nature as a guide. Led by your host Adam Haman. [3:24] Adam Haman Hello. Isn't technology just hilarious? I guess so. [3:29] Tyrone You got big plans for your 200th episode celebration and then all of a sudden nothing works. [3:36] Adam Haman I still don't see it on my YouTube, but if you see it on yours, I believe somebody is seeing it somewhere. [3:42] Tyrone Yes, somebody is seeing it somewhere. Well, I guess it's just going to be you and me. [3:48] Adam Haman This is kind of how the last one was. Well, hey, we made it. Congratulations, sir. Even if nobody's seeing this, I don't know. [4:06] Tyrone We do have a couple of guests waiting in the waiting room. Maybe they know. But first, we allow some of these bozos on to come celebrate with us. Congratulations, sir. It's number 200. I didn't know if we would make it. Cheers, my friend. [4:23] Adam Haman When we started this little project two years ago, can you believe that? [4:29] Tyrone It's crazy. Oh, you're getting dinged. Ding-donged. Well, welcome everybody to the fantastic, fabulous, super califragilistic 200th episode of Human Nature. [4:41] Adam Haman Oh, wait. I can get my sound effects going. Yeah, I don't think we're live, my friend. [4:47] Tyrone Yeah, I don't think we are either. [4:53] Adam Haman Oh, this is just so silly. So Stefan and Mark, if you can hear us, apologies. Adam's a dumb [ __ ] when it comes to technology. [5:07] Tyrone Should we pop these fellas on here and just apologize to him? I mean, it's 12:12. Should we just cancel this whole nonsense? [5:13] Adam Haman No. Stefan Kinsella. [5:19] Stephan Kinsella Hi, Mark. [5:19] Mark Maresca Mark. Hey, guys. What's up? Congratulations, Adam. [5:25] Adam Haman Thank you. Hold it. We might have to redo this whole thing. [5:25] Tyrone Yeah, we're almost certainly going to have to redo this whole thing. I could show you. My YouTube studio thinks that we have a live stream. [5:38] Adam Haman It thinks it's happening. [5:48] Tyrone Oh, yeah. It thinks we've been going for 5 minutes, but nobody else thinks this. [5:57] Adam Haman Well, that's interesting. [5:57] Tyrone Mr. Kinsella, I know we've never met, but nice to meet you virtually, sir. I'm going to kiss your ass here in a second, but I kind of wanted to do it when we're actually going, so just pretend we've never seen each other five minutes prior to this. But I like the hat and the pipe. Very deerstalker. I'll start calling you Watson or something. [6:16] Stephan Kinsella Yeah, that is about the pipe. You look amazing. [6:22] Tyrone Oh, I can't hear you though. Are you muted? Who's muted, my friend? [6:30] Mark Maresca No, nobody's muted, but I can't hear Mark either. Mark, say something. [6:30] Mark Maresca Talking talking. [6:36] Tyrone Okay, Stephan, I can't. You are I can't hear stuff now. [6:43] Adam Haman Well, maybe nothing works. Maybe that's the Streamyard let you pick the mic and Oh, how about now? How about now? [6:51] Stephan Kinsella Yeah. Yeah, you're correct. How about now? My mic was muted. My mic, my Yeti was muted. [6:57] Tyrone I don't see anything on YouTube Studio, Adam, saying anything's going [7:03] Adam Haman Well, mine does. [7:03] Tyrone Really? Where are you? 7 seconds....

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 367. I appeared on Patrick Smith's Disenthrall channel (Disenthrall Youtube channel) to discuss and rebut—to fisk, really—an article by one "Strangerous Thoughts" from 2010 criticizing my IP abolitionism—or my "intellectual communism," as he called it. The main article is: The economic principles of intellectual property and the fallacies of intellectual communism; see also his related article The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property. From Patrick's shownotes: I was linked an article calling my position on intellectual property communism. Let's dive in and see if I'm wrong and if we can learn something new with none other than the leader in libertarian intellectual property critiques, Mr Libertarian Heavyweight himself, Stephan Kinsella! Article in question: https://bit.ly/32d3WXZ For links to Support Us, Our Social Media, Video Platforms, Swag Stores, Discord Server, and way more check out our web site: https://www.disenthrall.me/platforms Patrick is one of the best podcast hosts/interviewers I've had, and he was excellent here. We crammed a lot of fisking into this 100 minute discussion, which was not easy since Strangerous purports to identify "17 fallacies" in my IP thought. Odyssee video: My backup video on Youtube: https://youtu.be/Rt5weZMkeI0  

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 366. This is my appearance on the Repeal the 20th Century podcast (Youtube channel). We discussed my IP debate at the Soho Forum (see KOL364 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Richard Epstein: Patent and Copyright Law Should Be Abolished and KOL369 | Soho Forum IP Debate Post-Mortem with Greg Morin), the basic case against IP (both natural rights/Lockean and utilitarian), problems with both, problems with Locke's proto-Marxian labor theory of property, patent, copyright, and trademark, defamation, plagiarism, attribution, fraud, property rights in "value," and "ownership" of NFTs and bitcoin. Youtube: https://youtu.be/vrJ-jQUrBjE Related links: KOL364 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Richard Epstein: Patent and Copyright Law Should Be Abolished KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) KOL 037 | Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory KOL207 | Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Are Not About Plagiarism, Theft, Fraud, or Contract

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 365. My friend Walter Block, economics professor at Loyola University-New Orleans, asked me to give a guest lecture today (Dec. 8, 2021) for his Law and Economics course, on the topics of intellectual property. This is it. Transcript below. Youtube: https://youtu.be/PclRRN6podw TRANSCRIPT "Intellectual Property: Law and Economics: Guest Lecture Walter Block’s Law and Economics Class" Loyola University-New Orleans, Dec. 8, 2021 by Stephan Kinsella 00:00:00 WALTER BLOCK: Okay, it’s 12:37.  We usually start the class with a moment of silence, so we’ll start the class with a moment of silence. 00:00:09 [moment of silence] 00:00:12 Okay, students, let me introduce you to my friend, Stephan Kinsella who is a lawyer in Houston, working in Houston, and he is, I would say, one of the preeminent libertarian theoreticians.  So without any further ado, you’ve all read his paper, and he’ll go over it a bit and have a nice dialogue with you.  So Stephan, start. 00:00:36 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, can everybody hear me okay?  What is this course?  What’s the name of the course? 00:00:43 WALTER BLOCK: Law and Economics. 00:00:44 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, Law and Economics.  Okay, so I can touch on both.  I think what I’ll do is I’ll try to speak around 25-30 minutes, and then open it up for questions.  And if you guys have any questions while I’m speaking, I don’t mind if you interrupt me if there’s something I said that needs clarification or if I’m not clear.  So feel free to interrupt me during it.  Otherwise, you can wait until I’m done. 00:01:08 So I think what I’d like to do is kind of maybe explain how I got to my views and where the paper came from.  Basically, I started practicing law and patent law around 1993-94, and I had been a libertarian for a long time, and I had been thinking about the intellectual property issue because I was not satisfied with the arguments in favor of it by Ayn Rand and others partly because these rights terminate at a certain time, and it just didn’t make sense to me.  Like if it’s a natural right or real property right, why would it terminate?  And then how do you know what the right length of time is?  All those issues. 00:01:45 So I searched for a better argument thinking I’m a libertarian, and I’m a patent lawyer.  I’d know more about it than anyone else.  I’ll figure this thing out.  And finally I came to conclusion right around the time that I started practicing patent law that all of intellectual property law is totally unjustified.  And so I ended up writing that paper in 1999 or so, which is over 26 years now.  In the meantime, I’ve come across other arguments, other data, other ways of presenting it, and although I think the original argument is still sound.  So that’s where we are. 00:02:23 I think what I’d like to do is focus on two types of intellectual property just because of the time constraint, and those are the two most important and the two most damaging in my view, which is patent and copyright.  The other types are trademark and trade secret, and then there are some other more recent types like mask work protection for semi-conductors and database rights in some countries and boat hull designs.  And I would also include defamation law as a type of intellectual property because the arguments for it are the same, although in the law it’s not usually considered that way. 00:02:57 So let me first talk about the term.  I do think the term intellectual property is a loaded term, and it’s as misnomer, but we’re stuck with it for now and what we want to talk about it because that’s the way it’s gone.  Originally, the four main types of intellectual property, which are patent law, copyright law, trademark law, and trade secret law.  They were all separate types of all.  They had different origins.  Trade secret originated in the common law.  Trademark originated in the common law, although statutes have sort of replaced it.  Patent and copyright purely originated in the statutes and legislation, and they all have different domains. 00:03:38 I’m going to give a quick history of patent and copyright.  So you had a rough version of a proto-free market in Europe back in the 1500s, 1600s, some semblance of free trade, some semblance of property rights.  Then – and at the time, the king and the church, in cahoots with each other, could control what their scribes – what books they would print by hand.  So they could control what thought could be put down on paper and disseminated to the masses, so they had the practical ability to control thought. 00:04:19 When the printing press came around in the 1500s or whenever it was, Gutenberg’s printing press, that threatened this easy control by the state and the church of what could be printed.  So the first thing the government did was, in England, they started the Stationers Company as a monopolistic guild, which had the monopoly on printing.  So the government still could control what could be printed. 00:04:44 When the monopoly on that – when the charter ran out about 100 years later, the question was what to do now.  And so the Statute of Anne was enacted in response to that in 1709, which basically is the origin of our modern copyright law.  So they basically gave the copyright, instead of giving it to the publishers or to the printing guilds, they gave it to the authors.  But as a practical matter, the authors had to, right away, turn around and assign their copyrights to the publishers to get it published.  So it ended up – the rights still stayed with the publishers, and that model lasted until about 15 years ago when the internet and Amazon and self-publishing started disrupting everything. 00:05:29 So you had all these gatekeepers.  I mean we’re all familiar with the RIAA, the music industry, and the publishing industry, record labels, Hollywood, book publishing.  There’s this gatekeeper function.  All the publishers maintain control.  The authors usually have to assign their rights, and then they’re subject to the whims of these gatekeepers, which act as sort of like a modern version of the old gatekeeper function of the Stationers Company and the church and the crown, which was censorship basically.  So just until recently, we’ve had that model that was perpetuated. 00:06:08 So copyright covers the right to copy an original work of creation like a book, a novel, anything that’s creative.  Things that are functional, practical things like inventions, which are machines or processes, ways of doing things, those are what patent law covers.  And just briefly, trademark covers marks and signs that you use to indicate the source of goods like Coca-Cola or Nike.  And trade secret covers what rights you have when you try to keep information proprietary and secret, and someone leaks it.  Can you go to court to stop someone from leaking it further?  That’s what trade secret law covers. 00:06:57 So even earlier than the Statute of Anne of 1709, which covers copyright, you had the practice of kings granting monopolies called letters patent because the patent in Latin means – or patente means open.  So it was an open letter, which means it’s like the king writes on a piece of paper to someone who’s a court crony.  He says here’s a letter you can show to the world.  I, then king, hereby grant the bearer of this letter the exclusive right to sell this product in this region.  So he would grant monopolies, which would protect them from competition.  So one guy would have the exclusive right to sell playing cards or sheepskin or something in a given region.  And of course that means they could make a lot of money because no one could compete with them, so they could charge quasi-monopolistic prices. 00:07:48 If you’re protected from competition, you could sell products at a higher price than you could in the race of competition.  That was the whole purpose of it.  And the king would do this to get a kickback in the form of taxes or to induce these guys to collect taxes or to buy their loyalty.  So this process got out of hand, and parliament got sick of it, and parliament enacted, in 1623, a statute trying to limit the king’s discretion to grant all these crazy mercantilist, anti-competitive, protectionist, monopoly privilege grants called letters patent. 00:08:23 And they passed a law called the Statute of Monopolies, so it was intended to restrict the ability of the king to grant these monopolies, which interfere with the free market and restrict competition and make the average consumer worse off because they have less diversity of products, they have higher prices they have to pay, and so on.  But in the Statute of Monopolies, the statute retained the ability of the government to grant these monopolies, these letters patent, for original inventions.  So they eliminated most of these monopoly grants of privilege, but they kept it for inventions, and so the modern practice of granting patents for inventions emerged there. 00:09:07 And then in the United States in 1789 when the Constitution was enacted, there’s a clause called the copyright clause and section 1 – I’m sorry, article 1, section 8, which gives Congress the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing, for limited times to inventors and authors an exclusive right to their inventions and discoveries – their writings and discoveries.  So that’s the basis for copyright and patent law in modern American law is that copyright clause. 00:09:39 And by the way, just as a point of interest, most people now, when they read that, they think that the word science corresponds to the patent grant, and the useful arts corresponds to copyright because they think copyright covers artistic creation.  However, the way language was used at the time, the word science was more general....

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 364. Email to Richard Epstein: Tension Between Takings Framework and IP Views This is my Soho Forum debate held Nov. 15, 2021, in Manhattan, against professor Richard Epstein, moderated by Gene Epstein. I defended the resolution "all patent and copyright law should be abolished" and Professor Epstein opposed it. Oxford debate rules applied which meant that whoever changed the most minds won. My side went from about 20 to 29 percentage points, gaining about 9; Richard went from about 44 to 55%, gaining about 11, so he won by 1.7 percentage points. Grok shownotes: In this Soho Forum debate held on November 15, 2021, in Manhattan, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella argues for the resolution that “all patent and copyright law should be abolished,” facing off against law professor Richard Epstein, moderated by Gene Epstein (0:00-10:00). Kinsella, drawing on his 28 years of patent law experience, contends that intellectual property (IP) laws violate natural property rights, stifle innovation, and distort culture by creating artificial scarcity on non-scarce ideas, using examples like baking a cake to illustrate how knowledge guides action without needing ownership (10:01-25:00). He critiques the utilitarian justification for IP, arguing it empowers patent trolls and corporate interests while limiting competition, and highlights IP’s historical roots in state monopolies, such as the Statute of Monopolies (1623), to underscore its statist nature (25:01-40:00). Kinsella’s passionate case frames IP as a harmful intervention that impoverishes humanity. Epstein, defending IP, argues that patents and copyrights are extensions of property rights, incentivizing innovation by protecting creators’ investments, though he acknowledges flaws in the current system (40:01-55:00). He counters Kinsella’s scarcity argument by suggesting that IP prevents overuse of ideas, using analogies like overfishing, and defends the constitutional basis for IP to promote progress (55:01-1:10:00). In rebuttals and Q&A, Kinsella reiterates that IP redistributes property rights unjustly, while Epstein emphasizes practical benefits despite imperfections, with both engaging the audience on issues like pharmaceutical patents and cultural impacts (1:10:01-1:30:15). The debate, governed by Oxford rules, saw Epstein win by changing more minds (11% vs. Kinsella’s 9%), but Kinsella’s arguments resonate with libertarians skeptical of state intervention (1:30:16-1:30:24). This lively exchange offers a rigorous exploration of IP’s philosophical and practical dimensions. My notes, a Grok detailed summary, and a Transcript, are below. Postmortem episode to follow. Update: See KOL369 | Soho Forum IP Debate Post-Mortem with Greg Morin. Note: Reddit forums discussing the debate. Youtube: https://youtu.be/Ep2-ohgFOys See Gene Epstein's note about Oxford debate rules at Soho Forum and the margin of error:   GROK DETAILED SUMMARY Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview Stephan Kinsella’s Soho Forum debate against Richard Epstein, held on November 15, 2021, tackles the resolution “all patent and copyright law should be abolished.” Moderated by Gene Epstein, the 90-minute debate pits Kinsella’s libertarian anti-IP stance, rooted in Austrian economics and property rights, against Epstein’s defense of IP as a necessary incentive for innovation. Kinsella argues IP violates natural rights and stifles competition, while Epstein sees it as an extension of property rights. Oxford debate rules determined Epstein as the winner by a narrow margin. Below is a summary with bullet points for key themes and detailed descriptions for each 5-15 minute block, based on the transcript at the provided link. Key Themes with Time Markers Introduction and Debate Setup (0:00-10:00): Gene Epstein introduces the Soho Forum, Oxford rules, and debaters, setting the stage for Kinsella vs. Epstein on IP abolition. Kinsella’s Opening: IP Violates Property Rights (10:01-25:00): Kinsella argues IP creates artificial scarcity, violates natural rights, and impedes innovation, using scarcity and action theory. Epstein’s Opening: IP as Property Extension (25:01-40:00): Epstein defends IP as incentivizing innovation, acknowledging flaws but arguing it protects creators’ investments. Kinsella’s Rebuttal and Historical Critique (40:01-55:00): Kinsella refutes Epstein’s utilitarian claims, tracing IP’s statist origins and highlighting its practical harms. Epstein’s Rebuttal: Practical Benefits of IP (55:01-1:10:00): Epstein counters with IP’s role in preventing idea overuse, defending its constitutional and economic value. Q&A and Cross-Examination (1:10:01-1:25:00): Both debaters address audience questions on pharmaceuticals, culture, and IP enforcement, sharpening their arguments. Closing Statements and Results (1:25:01-1:30:24): Kinsella and Epstein summarize, with Epstein winning by changing more minds (11% vs. 9%). Block-by-Block Summaries 0:00-5:00 (Introduction and Context) Description: Gene Epstein opens the Soho Forum debate, explaining Oxford rules where the winner changes the most minds (0:00-2:30). He introduces Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney opposing IP, and Epstein, an NYU law professor defending it, framing the resolution: “all patent and copyright law should be abolished” (2:31-5:00). Summary: The stage is set for a libertarian debate on IP, with clear rules and introductions establishing the debaters’ credentials and positions. 5:01-10:00 (Debate Setup and Initial Polling) Description: Epstein conducts an initial audience poll, showing 20% support for Kinsella’s anti-IP stance and 44% for Epstein’s pro-IP view (5:01-7:30). Kinsella begins his opening, briefly outlining his 28 years in patent law and his belief that IP violates property rights (7:31-10:00). Summary: The block establishes the audience’s baseline views and Kinsella’s anti-IP premise, grounding the debate in libertarian property rights theory. 10:01-15:00 (Kinsella’s Case: Scarcity and Property) Description: Kinsella argues that property rights apply only to scarce, rivalrous resources to avoid conflict, using Austrian economics and Mises’ praxeology (10:01-12:45). He illustrates with a cake recipe, showing knowledge guides action but isn’t scarce, so IP restrictions are unjust (12:46-15:00). Summary: Kinsella lays out his theoretical foundation, contrasting scarce physical resources with non-scarce ideas to challenge IP’s legitimacy. 15:01-20:00 (Kinsella: IP’s Harms) Description: Kinsella contends IP violates freedom of speech, distorts culture, and impedes innovation by empowering patent trolls and corporations (15:01-17:30). He cites examples like pharmaceutical patents raising costs and delaying access, arguing IP “literally kills people” (17:31-20:00). Summary: The practical harms of IP are highlighted, framing it as a state-imposed barrier to innovation and human welfare, strengthening Kinsella’s case. 20:01-25:00 (Kinsella: IP as Redistribution) Description: Kinsella argues IP redistributes property rights from original owners to IP holders, using a mousetrap patent example to show how it restricts others’ use of their resources (20:01-22:45). He calls IP a “total abomination” that impoverishes humanity (22:46-25:00). Summary: IP is framed as a state-enforced theft of property rights, with vivid examples underscoring its incompatibility with libertarian principles. 25:01-30:00 (Epstein’s Opening: IP as Incentive) Description: Epstein opens, acknowledging IP’s imperfections but defending it as an extension of property rights that incentivizes innovation (25:01-27:45). He argues that without patents, creators face free-rider problems, reducing investment in ideas (27:46-30:00). Summary: Epstein presents a utilitarian defense of IP, emphasizing its role in protecting creators and encouraging costly innovation, countering Kinsella’s absolutism. 30:01-35:00 (Epstein: IP’s Practical Role) Description: Epstein uses analogies like overfishing to argue IP prevents overuse of ideas, ensuring creators benefit (30:01-32:30). He defends the constitutional basis for IP to “promote the progress of science and useful arts,” citing pharmaceuticals (32:31-35:00). Summary: Epstein strengthens his case with practical examples and constitutional arguments, framing IP as necessary despite flaws. 35:01-40:00 (Epstein: Refining IP System) Description: Epstein suggests reforms like shorter patent terms but insists IP is better than none, arguing it balances incentives with public access (35:01-37:45). He critiques Kinsella’s scarcity argument, claiming ideas need protection to avoid underinvestment (37:46-40:00). Summary: Epstein advocates for a reformed IP system, challenging Kinsella’s abolitionist stance with a nuanced defense of IP’s economic role. 40:01-45:00 (Kinsella’s Rebuttal: Historical Critique) Description: Kinsella rebuts, tracing IP to the 1623 Statute of Monopolies and 1710 Statute of Anne, arguing they stem from state privilege, not property rights (40:01-42:30). He cites studies showing patents don’t boost innovation, only litigation (42:31-45:00). Summary: Kinsella counters Epstein’s defense with IP’s statist origins and empirical evidence, reinforcing his call for abolition. 45:01-50:00 (Kinsella: Refuting Utilitarianism) Description: Kinsella argues that IP’s utilitarian benefits are unproven, citing open-source software thriving without patents (45:01-47:30). He reiterates that IP violates natural rights by restricting how owners use their

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 363. I was interviewed by Caleb Brown on the topic of argumentation ethics and related matters. Recorded Oct. 29, 2021. Note: I mangled my friend Bogdan Dabrowski's name during the podcast, switching it around and Russifying it to Dobran Bogdanovitch or something like that. Mea culpa, Brother Bogdan! (some of his work is linked here: Bogdan Dabrowski, Mises’ Human Action & Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics applied to Psychology, Philosophy Europe Convention, Cryptoanarchy Institute, Prague (Sept. 12, 2015); and Praxeological Psychology, 27 February 2013)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 362. I was a guest on California Gold #6, with guest host Matthew Sands. From the shownotes: Stephan and Matt covered a wide variety of libertarian themes, including property rights, self-ownership, the Non-Aggression Principle, intellectual property, Hoppean Argumentation Ethics, Georgism, Objectivism, utilitarianism, deontology and much more. Stephan was hosted by Matthew Sands of the Nation of Sanity project (http://www.nationsofsanity.com/), which aims to promote the Non-Aggression Principle as a universal peace agreement, hosting for California Gold for the first time. https://youtu.be/_usiT5Z2JXY

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 361. A nice young man, self-described as "generally an anarchist? But also a statist (monarchist? ie 'the kingdom of heaven') in the spiritual sense" had some questions for me since he doesn't have a lot of people to bounce his ideas off of. I agreed to do it if we could record it, in case anything interesting came out of it. You be the judge. A variety of topics came up, primarily his interest in the problem of "oaths" as the root evil in the modern world, and related/other issues like the nature of contracts, usury as evil, Pournelle's "iron law of bureaucracy," Jesus, and the evils of the Uniform Commercial Code (something to do with Babylon), and Galambos. Transcript below. https://youtu.be/EEj137ADBzY TRANSCRIPT Libertarian Answer Man: Oaths: With Kent Wellington Stephan Kinsella & Kent Wellington Oct. 17, 2021 00:00:03 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, hey, this is Stephan Kinsella, Kinsella on Liberty.  This is another one of my episodes where someone asked to talk to me about something.  And I said yes, if I can record it in case there’s anything of interest to listeners.  So this is Kent Wellington who briefly informed me he’s not exactly a libertarian but just has some questions.  I don’t really know what you want to talk about, but Kent, why don’t you introduce yourself, however you want to do it, and then we can start? 00:00:27 KENT WELLINGTON: Hey there.  My name is Kent Wellington, and I just have been very anti-IP since I was a child really.  And when I realized that Mr. Kinsella was the one who wrote one of my favorite books, Against IP, I was really taken aback.  And then I was like, wow, I should reach out to him and just try to have a conversation with him because I’ve sort of been in the – what do you say – I’ve just been up in the towers on these topics for a long time, like my whole life. 00:01:14 And I’ve never – I never really get to talk about these topics with anybody one on one, and I just saw his – that he puts his email out there, so I was like, I’ll just email him, see if he’ll – he’s willing to talk to me for even a minute.  So that’s what we’re doing right now, and I have some very different takes, I guess, what I think are some novel takes but maybe aren’t, and I’d love to be proven wrong, or I just wanted to throw some things at you regarding contracts, IP, anarchism, a few different things.  Mainly, I guess my main hypothesis is – so I’m very into the quotes from Jesus on oaths, and I believe that, without – so I think that oaths are the key social mechanism of the state.  Do you – what do you think about that?  Are oaths not the key social mechanism of the state? 00:02:41 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Oaths?  O-A-T-H? 00:02:44 KENT WELLINGTON: Yes, oaths, yeah. 00:02:46 STEPHAN KINSELLA: I’m not sure I know what that means.  What do you mean? 00:02:51 KENT WELLINGTON: So oaths are – if you want to become a doctor in the US, at least a professionally recognized doctor, you have to take the Hippocratic Oath.  Others are – so our whole professional society is filled with oaths, which are really these sort of mystical activities, and our secular world is filled with these oaths.  To become a lawyer, you need to take the bar oath.  To become a politician, you just swear in.  You need to take an oath of office.  There’s a bajillion oaths you need to take in modern society if you want to partake in modern society. 00:03:42 And so Jesus – and I’m not necessarily getting religious here.  You can just say that in one of the most popular books in the world, which the Bible is, well, the biggest guy, the most important guy in the book, in the New Testament, Jesus, in his biggest speech, the Sermon on the Mount, he says take no oaths at all.  Instead, just say yes or no.  Anything beyond this comes from the evil one.  So my interpretation of that is that anything beyond you giving your word, like if I invite you to my birthday party, and I give you the – I say, hey, can you come to my birthday party, you can say yes or no, or you can say maybe too.  But anything beyond that, if I say, hey, well, will you swear on it, or hey, will you sign this contract, or hey, will you blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.  To me, that’s opening the door.  That’s exactly what Jesus was saying.  It’s opening the door for bad things to happen. 00:04:49 And to me, it’s what is the root cause of – it’s the potential root cause of all the bad things that happen with the state because – so like Jesus says, anything beyond this, anything beyond a verbal yes or no, it basically invokes – as I mentioned to you in an email, I’m also – I – so have you heard of Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy? 00:05:25 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Vaguely, but I don’t really remember. 00:05:28 KENT WELLINGTON: So he – so the law states that in any organization, over time, the bureaucracy will overtake the main organizational mission.  So when you swear an oath or you have a contract or something, there’s always a third party that basically you’re acknowledging an elevated third party that is, at least on a long enough timespan, is going to corrupt things.  And so to me, IP – so if – so IP is a form of a contract.  I mean it’s a contract.  If I have in my – I mean I just see that whole entire concept of IP as BS. 00:06:32 But let’s say I have my little idea, whether it’s a drawing.  Let’s say it’s a drawing, and I just go to the government, and we have a contract.  You could call it an oath where they’re going to protect my work.  They’re going to monopolize my work.  So to me, Jesus – I’m like – when I realized that Jesus said this because I had never heard that in a – I grew up in church.  I’ve never heard that before, heard him say that.  To me, that’s like – Jesus is the ultimate – he’s an anarchist in a sense, but he’s also, of course, a total statist, monarchist because he advocates for the kingdom of heaven and all these things, royal terms and things.  But I was really blown away that he just prescribes so clearly this way to… 00:07:41 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, so I think we would need a definition of oath because you’re using it by examples, and you’re even including – I think it’s a stretch to include it – to call the IP grant an oath or even a contract with the government.  It seems to me what you’re getting at is – and I imagine there’s lots of analysis of Jesus’ comments there, which I’m unfamiliar with.  But I would assume he’s against oaths because oaths typically show allegiance to some kind of authority.  And that gets close to having a false god.  You should only worship God.  You shouldn’t worship the state or the king.  So I would imagine that the prohibition on oaths has something to do with that.  I don’t know.  It’s just a guess. 00:08:33 But I don’t really know the clear distinction between making an oath and just saying yes or no.  I mean yes or no could be a contract.  Contracts are different than oaths, I would think.  But I mean the standard libertarian idea is that the state exists, is criminal, but the reason it exists is because it’s the rule of the majority by the minority.  How does the minority get away with it?  They get away with it because they basically have the majority convinced of their authority and their legitimacy, and they do this from a variety of ways.  They bribe them.  They brainwash them.  They propagandize them. 00:09:11 And they get them to say the Pledge of Allegiance, which is like an oath, and lawyers have to take an oath, and everyone has to start treating the Constitution as this thing of – and then even the social contract idea is – a little bit sneaks this in because even if you’re not a congressman or a politician or a lawyer or a doctor, they say that you’ve taken an oath to the Constitution even though you never did because by living here you agreed to live under the Constitution.  And they make you say the Pledge of Allegiance, so they sort of ingrain in everyone this idea that we all have this obligation or duty to the Constitution and thus to the state. 00:09:49 KENT WELLINGTON: Totally. 00:09:50 STEPHAN KINSELLA: So I think that’s one way they – that the government or the state maintains control and keeps the population docile and following their orders.  I suppose you could bring in this idea of oaths as part of the description of what goes on there, and maybe Jesus had some wise things to say about the danger of oaths that you could build on in that analysis, but that’s all I know about that. 00:10:18 KENT WELLINGTON: Okay.  I also want to point out that later on in the book of James, so James is talking about what Jesus had said, and he says remember, brothers, above all, swear no oaths.  So this no-oaths commandment is so central.  To me, it’s basically like the number-one commandment of Jesus besides the – sort of the key sacraments or something.  At least the really concrete commandment of Jesus is to swear no oaths, and to me, that’s just so plain. 00:10:59 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, I mean I suppose – I mean I think it seems at least compatible with the libertarian distrust of the state.  I mean we don’t think that people should be allegiant to the state, and we don’t have any allegiance to the state, and we shouldn’t treat the state like God, which they want us to do.  And maybe Jesus was giving something similar.  I mean there are decent libertarian arguments, like you said earlier, that Jesus was an anarchist.  There was a guy names James Redford who has an article, “Jesus is an Anarcho-Capitalist.” 00:11:28 And I think the fact that Jesus speaks in monarchist language and has a theological conception of this hierarchy of power in the spiritual realm doesn’t contradict the possibility that his secular thinking is compatible with private law and anarchy.  I mean even the idea of render unto Caesar would not mean taking an oath....

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 360. https://youtu.be/eC4g0vVepeI Isaac Funderburk sent me this email: Hello, Mr. Kinsella! I'm an economics student in Tennessee looking to get involved in the discourse around Austrian economics and libertarianism, particularly through culture change and academic organizations. Would it be possible to talk for a few minutes sometime this weekend or next week? I'm currently working with Turning Point USA as a social media manager and event organizer for a local ambassador, and I am involved with the Libertarian Party in the area. I've been familiar with Austrian economics for years now, but I had the good fortune to get an Austrian economics professor this semester and he has influenced me to pursue connections within the Mises Institute. I came across the many Mises Institute lectures and articles, and realized this is something I could get behind. I've recently spoken to Dr. Jonathan Newman, Mr. Jeff Deist, and Dr. Patrick Newman. I'm interested in understanding contract theory on a deeper level and found your lectures on intellectual property to be insightful. Would it be possible to arrange a brief phone call this week? Thank you for your time. We talked about college and what a libertarians goals should be, activism, careers, publishing, and economic and libertarian issues such as intellectual property. Related: Advice for Prospective Libertarian Law Students Reading Suggestions for Prospective/New Law Students (Roman/Civil law focus) (March 3, 2021)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 359. Related: Structural Safeguards to Limit Legislation and State Power Constitutional Structures in Defense of Freedom (ASC 1998) Randy Barnett’s “Federalism Amendment”–A Counterproposal; and related posts How to Fix the US 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) Libertarian Nation and Related Projects Update:  See The Universal Principles of Liberty (Aug. 14, 2025) Libertarian Nation and Related Projects (cataloging various libertarian "free nation" and related projects) Update: there was already a union among the states, a loose confederation, based on a treaty, a compact--the Articles of Confederation. A convention was called to modify it. Instead the Convention staged a coup and produced a new central state in secret instead of simply amending the… — Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) December 1, 2025 "the Articles were never abolished. So the United States of America under the Articles still exists; I suggest the 13 original states revive the original USA by having their legislatures appoint its delegation members to the Congress of the Confederation; each State delegation gets one vote in Congress. Then the Congress can permit applications from the other 37 newer states and expand the size of Congress to 50 delegations. Then the new Congress of the Confederation can seek to abolish and disband the USA and the illegal Constitution." From the recently-concluded Fifteenth Annual (2021) Meeting of the PFS, Bodrum, Turkey (Sept. 16–21, 2021). For others, see the links in the Program, or the PFS YouTube channel, including the growing PFS 2021 YouTube Playlist. Additional media of the proceedings will be released presently. Also re-podcast at PFP231 | Stephan Kinsella, State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PFS 2021). https://youtu.be/hPPC9OfzHgI For a similar talk, see KOL345 | Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PorcFest 2021). The followup panel discussion later that day is here: Related: Structural Safeguards to Limit Legislation and State Power Constitutional Structures in Defense of Freedom (ASC 1998) Randy Barnett’s “Federalism Amendment”–A Counterproposal; and related posts How to Fix the US 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) My notes are below: State Constitutions vs. The Libertarian Private Law Code Notes Stephan Kinsella Property and Freedom Society Annual Meeting Sep. 19, 2021 – Bodrum, Turkey   Joke: I’ve prepared a libertarian constitution, and I hope to cover as much of its 18 parts and 45 pages as possible in the next half hour. Part I, Section A, Subsection 1: “Definitions.” Just kidding. I’m not going to read it. I haven’t even finished it yet. My wife said “is this what you geeks think is funny?” I said we’ll see. Half of them may be relieved, but some of them will be saying “Oh damn, I wanted to hear a Libertarian Constitution read to me.” Tell Hoppe Porcfest choking joke. I’m going to talk about the idea of constitutions and libertarianism—whether the idea makes sense at all. Since I’ve been a libertarian in the early 1980s, I’ve seen various utopian libertarian projects, many of them scams, most of them failures— [UPDATED list at Libertarian Nation and Related Projects] Tipolis—"creator, owner and operator of a global portfolio of International Cities characterized by a high degree of autonomy": Free private cities/charter cities movement Próspera—a charter city on the island of Roatán, Honduras (wikipedia; official site; Próspera's e-Governance Portal; Prospera legal code; Próspera ZEDE; Official ZEDE Statute, Unofficial English Translation, and Commentary) Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC)—a special economic zone in Dubai adopting common law—wikipedia; Laws and Regulations in Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC); The DIFC’s Affirmation of English Common Law into its Statutory Framework Principality of Seborga—village in Italy claiming micronation status cruise ship nations, now seasteading (Blueseed); Oceania—The Atlantis Project Same people: Project Lifeboat: “From the people who brought you the Oceania project so many years ago comes the Lifeboat project. An attempt to create a spaceship for the purposes of saving the human race from the singularity predicted by Vernor Vinge.” crazy guys homesteading abandoned oil rigs and declaring sovereignty; private justice, arbitration, and common law groups: The “Creative Common Law” project (Jamin Hubner), an anarcho-capitalist project in which I was enlisted as an advisor, only for it to later turn from “Creative Common Law 1.0: Anarcho-Capitalism” to “Creative Common Law 2.0: Anarcho-Socialism/Syndicalism” Always be wary of “Waystation libertarians” Tom Bell’s “Ulex,” or “Open Source Legal Operating System”; LiberLand, which I helped draft an early constitution for see “The Voluntaryist Constitution” Galt’s Gulch Chile, a scam that ended in disaster; the Honduras special economic zones; General Governance (David Johnston), the idea of leveraging Indian tribes’ special status to extend their federal tax-free enclaves or zones; even the Free State Project National Constitution Center’s “The Libertarian Constitution” Roderick Long’s “Imagineering Freedom: A Constitution of Liberty Part I: Between Anarchy and Limited Government” and Michael Darby’s “Draft Constitution for a Reviving or New Nation,” both at http://freenation.org/a/ Dennis Pratt https://www.quora.com/What-would-a-libertarian-bill-of-rights-look-like/answer/Dennis-Pratt-3 Bernard H. Siegen, Drafting a Constitution for a Nation or Republic Emerging into Freedom. 2d ed. (Fairfax, Virginia: George Mason University Press, 1994) See also "A draft constitution for the state in the third millennium," by Prince Hans-Adam of Liechtenstein [Update: See also these older links from my old LibertarianGuide Wiki and Links (archived), under New Libertarian Nations: The Free State Project Seasteading Institute (Patri Friedman) Limón REAL Project (current) "Sealand" and Prince Roy Principality of "New Utopia" "Oceana" Libertarian Nation Foundation's links to other free-nation projects and related endeavors and one that may actually work, Setting Sail on a Giant, Floating City] I’ve been dragooned into helping some of these as consultant or advisor— General Governance, we met with Indian tribe north of Texas; now you get a 404, as David Johnston moved on to bitcoin, after assuring me that within 6 months we’ll have a libertarian nation. Joel Bomgar, a libertarian-leaning conservative Christian businessman and Mississippi legislator. LiberLand (swam with Wit Jedlicka, the president, in Turkey) Mediterranean sea. Others I’ve forgotten. Update, June 2025: I need to update this to include others like Liberland, (( “The Voluntaryist Constitution” )) Live and Let Live, (( KOL358 | Peace Radicals Ep. 40, with Marc Victor of Live and Let LiveKOL063 | “Live and Let Live” radio show with Gary Johnson discussing IP (Nov. 14, 2010); Kinsella on “Live and Let Live” Radio: Sunday, Nov. 14. )) Creative Common Law, (( Creative Common Law Project, R.I.P. and Waystation Libertarians. )) Nations of Sanity, (( KOL450 | Together Strong IP Discussion (Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity feat Econ Bro); KOL442 | Together Strong Debate vs. Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery (Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity); KOL426 | Discussing Immigration and Homesteading Donuts with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity; KOL372 | Discussing Contract Theory, Restitution, Punishment, with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity; KOL362 | California Gold #6, with Matt Sands: Defining Libertarianism, Anarchism and Voluntaryism. )) and a new I'm working on (still secret) Often these projects involve the drafting of a new “Constitution” or some similar code or legal document. Why do we even use the word “Constitution”? The modern libertarian movement originated in the US in the 1950s with the work of Ayn Rand, and others—Milton Friedman, Leonard Read, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and we’ve always viewed the American Founding and related documents—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Statue of Liberty, The Liberty Bell—as quasi-libertarian. Consider the scene near the end of Atlas Shrugged, where wise judge Narragansett “sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on the copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade . . .’” Or “The Libertarian Constitution” by Ilya Shapiro, Tim Sandefur, and Christina Mulligan: “This was probably an easier project for us than for our conservative and progressive counterparts because the current United States Constitution is fundamentally a libertarian or, more precisely, classical liberal document. So much so that, at the outset, we joked that all we needed to do was to add “and we mean it” at the end of every clause. Others have proposed various amendments to the Constitution that would “fix” or improve it. I’ve done so myself: Reviving the Kentucky Resolution of Jefferson and give states the power to nullify unconstitutional acts of the feds. Allow States to overturn Supreme Court decisions: ...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 358. I was interviewed by Marc Victor and Andy Marcantel of the Live and Let Live project about libertarianism. https://youtu.be/N0Mqp9Di_z8  

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 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 [Published as Stephan Kinsella, "The Liberland Constitution and Libertarian Principles," Libertarian Alliance (UK) (26 December, 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,...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 357. https://youtu.be/jFYMO6wzO8c?si=5FM46o6sWmLGrcvI I was a guest recently on Peter Quiñones' show Free Man Beyond The Wall, Episode 631 (Sept. 15, 2021). From his shownotes: Pete and Stephan discuss the Constitutionality of Biden's vaccine mandate and then get into discussions about Hoppe's plan for local politics and how it can fight against overreach by the Feds. I post this from Bodrum, Turkey, at the 2021 PFS meeting, watching Saif Ammous talk about bitcoin. The internet is wonderful. Grok shownotes: In this episode of the Free Man Beyond the Wall podcast, host Pete Quinones welcomes back patent attorney and author Stephan Kinsella to discuss pressing libertarian issues, starting with Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate announced in September 2021 (1:00-3:39). Kinsella critiques the mandate as unjust and potentially unconstitutional, predicting a 60% chance it survives legal challenges, though it may be struck down as illegal under current OSHA rules. The conversation explores the broader implications of federal overreach, contrasting it with state-level responses like Florida’s resistance under Governor DeSantis, which Kinsella views as strategically preferable despite its own libertarian shortcomings (5:02-9:20). They also touch on the cultural mania surrounding COVID policies, with Quinones expressing shock at public compliance and Kinsella noting the temporary nature of these measures compared to enduring state injustices like war and taxation (15:01-20:05). The discussion shifts to deeper libertarian strategies, drawing heavily on Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s ideas of decentralization and covenant communities as a path to liberty (22:00-39:46). Kinsella advocates for nullification and secession as bold responses to federal mandates, emphasizing the importance of local politics and natural elites in fostering decentralized, voluntary societies (8:25-9:58, 44:42-47:37). They critique the left’s egalitarian chaos versus the right’s hierarchical order, aligning with Hoppe’s view of natural hierarchies as essential for a free society (41:15-44:37). The episode concludes with reflections on global COVID responses, particularly Australia’s authoritarian measures, and the potential for secession movements in the U.S. as federalism persists (30:58-36:04). Kinsella and Quinones also briefly address contentious libertarian topics like intellectual property, abortion, and borders, underscoring the need for anarchist solutions to resolve these intractable issues (49:19-50:38). Transcript and grok analysis/summary below. https://youtu.be/jFYMO6wzO8c             Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Descriptions 0:00-5:00: Introduction and Initial Discussion on Biden’s Mandate Description: The episode begins with a promotional segment for Richard Grove’s Autonomy course, followed by Quinones introducing Kinsella, a patent attorney and author of Against Intellectual Property. They dive into Biden’s vaccine mandate, announced in September 2021, discussing its constitutionality and potential legal outcomes. Summary: Promotion of Richard Grove’s Autonomy course, highlighting its value for navigating current challenges (0:00-0:49). Quinones introduces Kinsella and outlines the episode’s focus on Biden’s mandate, its constitutionality, state nullification, and broader libertarian topics (1:00-1:44). Kinsella shares his travel plans to Bodrum, Turkey, for a libertarian event, setting a casual tone (1:57-2:43). Discussion on Biden’s mandate begins, with Kinsella calling it outrageous but noting OSHA’s history of overreach; he predicts a 60% chance it survives but may be struck down as illegal (2:48-3:39). Quinones describes the mandate as part of a broader “insanity” over the past 18 months, citing public compliance and cultural shifts (3:47-4:49). 5:02-15:01: Federal vs. State Power and Cultural Mania Description: The conversation deepens into the libertarian critique of federal and state interventions, comparing Biden’s mandate with DeSantis’ counter-policies in Florida. They explore the cultural mania surrounding COVID policies, with Quinones sharing personal experiences and Kinsella reflecting on vaccine skepticism and Twitter’s role in amplifying hysteria. Summary: Kinsella critiques both Biden’s mandate and DeSantis’ fines on businesses requiring vaccines as unlibertarian, but sees federal overreach as the greater threat (5:02-6:09). Quinones laments the erosion of private property rights and shares horror stories from lockdown experiences, contrasting Georgia’s reopening with California’s prolonged restrictions (6:15-7:40). Kinsella proposes nullification as a bold state strategy, citing Tom Woods, and criticizes praising governors for granting natural rights (7:48-9:20). Discussion of culture wars, with businesses caught in political crossfire; Quinones references Hoppe’s insights on societal division (9:20-10:45). Quinones recounts his severe COVID experience at Porkfest, expressing skepticism about vaccines but no regrets; Kinsella shares his milder case and vaccine choice (10:51-13:04). They discuss vaccine skepticism, with Kinsella citing a doctor’s caution about mRNA technology; Quinones questions the rush to vaccinate without knowing COVID’s origins (13:13-14:54). Twitter’s role in amplifying mania is debated, with Kinsella seeing it as a symptom of broader societal issues (14:54-15:01). 15:01-30:14: Long-Term Impacts, Economic Concerns, and Local Solutions Description: The hosts analyze the long-term societal and economic impacts of COVID policies, including inflation and debt. They advocate for Hoppe’s localist solutions, discussing the plight of small businesses and the potential of Bitcoin to curb government spending. Summary: Kinsella views COVID policies as temporary compared to permanent state harms like war and IP; hopes for fatigue to end mandates, citing international variations (15:01-16:55). Quinones notes public enthusiasm for mandates, suggesting empty lives find purpose in compliance; Kinsella sees mandates as punitive rather than protective (17:02-19:23). They discuss authoritarian rhetoric from figures like Leana Wen, fueling conspiracy theories about vaccine motives; Kinsella predicts “herd immunity” may be erased from discourse (19:29-20:54). Economic concerns arise, with Quinones highlighting inflation from excessive spending; Kinsella agrees, blaming the Federal Reserve (20:54-22:00). Hoppe’s What Must Be Done is cited as a guide for local political action, advocating for decentralized “Liechtensteins” over immediate privatization (22:00-22:45). Small businesses’ struggles under conflicting mandates are discussed; Kinsella critiques Massie’s contractor workaround as impractical (22:45-25:34). Corporate restructuring to evade regulations (e.g., Obamacare) is noted, but Kinsella warns of bureaucratic adaptability (25:34-27:05). Bitcoin’s potential to limit government spending is praised, forcing fiscal restraint and rational policy (27:05-28:57). Promotion of the Nomad Network, a liberty-focused community for entrepreneurship and networking (29:03-30:14). 30:14-45:00: Global Perspectives, Secession, and Hoppean Principles Description: The conversation turns to global COVID responses, particularly Australia’s authoritarianism, and the potential for U.S. secession. They delve into Hoppe’s vision of covenant communities, natural elites, and the left-right divide, emphasizing decentralized order over egalitarian chaos. Summary: Quinones questions the global coordination of COVID responses, dismissing Trump-centric conspiracies; Australia’s police brutality shocks them (30:14-31:25). Kinsella contrasts U.S. constitutional limits with Commonwealth countries’ lack thereof, citing The Handmaid’s Tale to highlight state power (31:25-32:59). Canada’s authoritarian potential is discussed, restrained by U.S. proximity and rural resistance (32:59-34:05). Secession’s likelihood grows, with Quinones predicting a U.S. breakup in his lifetime; Kinsella sees federalism as a hopeful sign (34:05-36:15). Critique of centralist libertarians (e.g., Objectivists) who oppose state sovereignty; Kinsella favors Hoppe’s decentralized enclaves (36:15-38:30). Hoppe’s covenant communities are defended as inevitable under anarchy, ensuring law and order through private institutions (38:30-40:23). Discussion of voluntary segregation and diverse enclaves as natural outcomes of freedom, citing U.S. ethnic neighborhoods (40:23-41:20). Quinones aligns with Hoppe’s view of the right as order-driven (hierarchy) versus the left’s chaotic egalitarianism; Kinsella agrees, emphasizing natural hierarchies (41:20-44:37). 45:00-50:57: Natural Elites, Future Outlook, and Libertarian Divides Description: The final segment focuses on Hoppe’s concept of natural elites as community leaders in a stateless society. They reflect on the future of COVID policies, predicting regional differences, and address divisive libertarian issues like IP, abortion, and borders. Summary: Hoppe’s What Must Be Done and natural elites are discussed; Kinsella defines them as trusted experts in various fields, essential for dispute resolution and social order (45:00-47:37). Quinones predicts regional divergence, with blue states prolonging mandates; Kinsella remains cautiously optimistic, citing vaccine uptake and Delta’s impact (47:37-49:12). Kinsella plugs his websites (stephankinsella.com, c4sif.org) and expresses interest in Quinones’ post-libertarianism, planning future discussion (49:12-49:34). Divisive libertarian issues (IP, abortion, borders) are briefly addressed; Kinsella sees IP as clea

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 356. I was interviewed by Caleb Brown on the topic of IP--explained what it is, its origins, how it's a type of crony capitalism, and how it emerged historically and acquired the name "intellectual property." Recorded Sep. 4, 2021. https://youtu.be/E4_oafovCyY

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 355. I was a guest today (Aug. 20, 2021) on The Bitcoin Group. https://youtu.be/cZXCDRpXVCQ Shownotes: Featuring… Joshua Scigala (https://twitter.com/Vaultoro) Dan Eve (https://twitter.com/cryptopoly) Stephan Kinsella (https://twitter.com/NSKinsella) and Thomas Hunt (https://twitter.com/MadBitcoins) THIS WEEK: Crypto Price Prediction: Bitcoin Could Be About To Soar To $100,000 And Ethereum To $5,000 As Cardano And Solana Suddenly Surge https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybam... Cade Cunningham Partners With BlockFi, Will Be Paid Sign-on Bonus in Bitcoin - The Street Crypto: Bitcoin and cryptocurrency news, advice, analysis and more https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/bitc... US Mortgage Giant To Accept Bitcoin This Year, Considers Other Cryptocurrencies https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-mor... Coinbase will buy $500M in crypto and invest 10% of all future profits in digital assets https://cointelegraph.com/news/coinba...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 354. Related: Libertarian Answer Man: Restrictive Covenants and Homeowners Associations (HOAs) Libertarian Answer Man: Restrictive Covenants, Reserved Rights, and Copyright KOL479 | Co-Ownership Revisited: Property Rights, Exclusion, Contracts, and Edge Cases, with Nick Sinard KOL354 | CDA §230, Being “Part of the State,” Co-ownership, Causation, Defamation, with Nick Sinard Libertarian Answer Man: Corporations, Trusts, HOAs, and Private Law Codes in a Private Law Society Libertarian Nicholas Sinard asked me to field some questions about the referenced issues, so we did so. Update: some of these issues also discussed in Libertarian Answer Man: Restrictive Covenants and Homeowners Associations (HOAs) and Libertarian Answer Man: Restrictive Covenants, Reserved Rights, and Copyright. https://youtu.be/54pMdixfWTI Relevant links: No, Libertarians, We Should NOT Abolish the CDA §230 and DMCA Safe Harbors! Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Intellectual Property Is Macy’s Part of the State? A Critique of Left Deviationists Michael Rectenwald, Who Really Owns Big Digital Tech?: "By now it should be perfectly clear that the most prominent Big Digital companies are not strictly private, for-profit companies. As I argued in Google Archipelago, they are also state apparatuses, or governmentalities, undertaking state functions, including censorship, propaganda, and surveillance." Walter Block, "A Libertarian Analysis of Suing for Libel," LewRockwell.com (Sep. 5, 2014) Causation and Aggression (with Patrick Tinsley), The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, vol. 7, no. 4 (Winter 2004): 97-112 Jeffrey Tucker, Backdoor Censorship through Libel Law; Techdirt Podcast Episode 266: In Defense Of Section 230 & A Decentralized Internet A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value “Aggression” versus “Harm” in Libertarianism Youtube transcript as cleaned up by Grok: Transcript: Stephan Kinsella and Nick Sinard Discuss CDA 230 and Libertarian Issues Stephan Kinsella (0:02): Okay, hey, this is Stephan Kinsella with a different edition of Kinsella on Liberty. One of my internet acquaintances, Nick Sinard—is that the right pronunciation? Nick Sinard: Yes. Stephan Kinsella: He's joining us. You wanted to chat about something today. I forgot what it was. I did two Tom Woods episodes last week, and things are blending together, so I'm forgetting what we were gonna talk about, but I'll let you bring up whatever you want. Go ahead. Introduce yourself too, if you don't mind. Nick Sinard (0:29): I'm just Nick Sinard, been a libertarian for like eight years. I got a few businesses and stuff, but maggotsnicksart.com, you know, I put some libertarian stuff up on there, but it's been a while since I've updated it. Stephan Kinsella (0:50): For some reason, I thought you were a foreigner, an outsider, a Frenchman or something with that name, but you sound Southern to me. Nick Sinard: Yeah, it is French, but yeah. Stephan Kinsella (1:01): What state are you in or from? Nick Sinard: Tennessee, close to the Great Smoky Mountains. Stephan Kinsella: Alright, two Southerners on the line then. Let's try to keep the IQ level, the total IQ level, above 100 if we can. It'll be a challenge, I know. Now, I guess I want to talk about mostly three things I think are all pretty interrelated. One you're starting to see more is that libertarians are starting to act like or say that Facebook's a part of the state. Nick Sinard (1:26): Oh no, yeah, I see that more. Stephan Kinsella: Another one I think that's related is kind of the Section 230 thing, or even libertarians will bring that up. And then I've seen, it's not as popular as it used to be, but terms of service violations as aggression. I've seen a few libertarians make that, but I think that's just confusion on liability and contract. Nick Sinard (1:50): I haven't heard that one too much. Stephan Kinsella (1:58): I don't recall ever hearing that terms of service are aggression. You could argue that they're not a binding contract, and I think there are good arguments for that. Nick Sinard (2:04): Well, I'm just saying, on that one, I've seen people say, well, you know, Facebook or Twitter didn't follow their own terms of service, so someone has the right to force them to do. Stephan Kinsella (2:18): Oh, right, yeah, that's a confusion of libertarian property and contract theory. That's true. But I guess start with the first one, which is the most popular one I've seen talked about on a few shows, actually, and many people in the Mises Caucus group pretty much say Facebook is a part of the state just because they're cooperating with the state when it comes to what information the government wants on its platform. Nick Sinard (2:42): You know, and they're like, right now, it's a part of the state, therefore, you know, I've seen some say that, no, I don't want legislation or anything like that, but you can say you don't want legislation to affect Facebook, but if you're saying Facebook's a part of the state, that does enter into some dangerous grounds. Stephan Kinsella (3:00): I agree. I mean, I think if you conclude someone is, you should say it. You shouldn't be afraid of the consequences, but you should be cautious and try to do it carefully. I guess I've been thinking about this too. Why do people feel compelled to do this? Like, why this witch hunt to classify Google, et cetera, as part of the state, or corporations? Like, the left libertarians want to say that about corporations because they have this limited liability privilege grant, so-called. I mean, I think, first, as libertarians, it's important to understand the state because it's the biggest aggressor. So we have an analysis and theory of the state. So the state is an identifiable actor, agent, or entity in society, and it plays a certain role. It's the institutionalized source of aggression. Now, we libertarians oppose aggression in general, so we oppose what I would say is private aggression and public aggression or aggression by private criminals, which is why we need self-defense and defense agencies and laws and courts and things like that. And we also oppose institutionalized aggression, and it seems clear that institutionalized aggression by the state is a far bigger threat than random, isolated, ad hoc acts of private crime by private criminals. Stephan Kinsella (4:01): The minarchists and classical liberals recognize the danger of public aggression, which is why they want to create a state, but they want to put limits on it, like in a constitution. So they recognize how dangerous it is, so they want to put limits on it, but they basically recognize the state as a possible source of violation of rights. So we have to identify the state, and we have an analysis of the state. I think that analysis always comes with this class analysis, like Hoppe does, and even Marx does to some extent, but he does it in a different way. But it's basically the rule of the majority by a minority. Nick Sinard (4:54): Right, that's why they do it, so that it's like a pyramid of power, so that, you know, the five percent or the two percent or the one percent or even the ten percent can exploit the other 90 or 99 percent. Stephan Kinsella (5:06): Right, so they can live high on the hog while the masses are relatively impoverished. So to succeed, I think Hoppe goes into this in his Banking Nation States great article. They have to basically persuade the population to go along with it by a variety of techniques: propaganda, coercion, tradition, appeals to authority, and with democracy, by getting everyone to falsely believe that they're part of the state. And, you know, so many people have relatives, or they themselves work for the state, because the government is so large now. The federal government, for example, so everyone is, you know, their kids are going to public schools, and we drive on public roads, so everyone starts to have this kind of interest in the state, so they're reluctant to challenge it. But still, the state itself has to be a minority. So if you broaden the definition of what's the state so large that it includes Google and Facebook, and even broader, any corporation, because no one has totally clean hands, I suppose, and even broader than that, every—not only every human being that's an employee of the state, which is, I don't know, what, 15, 20, 30 percent of the population—but people that are being paid by the state, because what's the difference, economically and politically, whether you pay someone a salary or you have a defense contractor that you're paying, or a welfare recipient who's getting money, or private jails, you know? Stephan Kinsella (6:08): So I guess these are all part of the state. So if you're going to have such a loose standard of conceptual connection or causation that Google and Facebook are part of the state, then basically we're all part of the state, which is exactly the lie that the state tells. They tell us this so you are part of the government, that's why you can't complain about it. You have the right to vote, so you are the government, right? So you can't complain if you don't get the results you don't like. So you have these anti-statists, so-called, doing the same thing that the statists do. They're all saying we're all part of the state, which is ridiculous. Nick Sinard (7:07): Oh, yeah. Stephan Kinsella: But then you have to ask, okay, so why are these libertarians, why do they want to say that Facebook and Twitter and Google and YouT

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 353. Some twitter users were confused about IP and whether stealing someone's document from their safe implied damages greater than stealing a blank document, and whether this difference implied IP, etc. So I did an impromptu zoom and a few people joined to ask questions about this and other matters. Unpolished. Enjoy. https://youtu.be/NzXyZb9XaR4

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 351. I was a guest host for the Tom Woods Show, Ep. 1941 (released July 29, 2021) while he is out sick. Shownotes: Guest host Stephan Kinsella talks to Shane Hazel about his growing awareness of liberty and Austrian economics while in the Marines in Iraq, his run for Senate on the Libertarian ticket in 2020 in Georgia and his role as “spoiler,” his future plans to run for Governor of Georgia, and his proposals to fix the broken criminal justice system. Additional shownotes: Podcast: RADICAL with Shane Hazel  Twitter: https://twitter.com/ShaneTHazel 11 questions for Georgia U.S. Senate candidate Shane Hazel PEAKd — video & live-streaming platform on HIVE https://youtu.be/zsKZO5VxZfw

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 350. While at FreedomFest 2021, Gene Epstein (of SOHO Forum) and I discussed intellectual property and other libertarian matters on the Pauls to the Wall podcast. Recorded July 23, 2021; released July 25, 2021.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 349. Streamed live on Jul 13, 2021. Stephan and Joshua Smith sit down to talk Intellectual Property, Hans Herman Hoppe, and heavyweight debates (on "heavyweight", see tweet posted below). (Afterhours chat here: KOL462 | CouchStreams After Hours on Break the Cycle with Joshua Smith (2021)) Grok shownotes and Youtube transcript below. https://youtu.be/w9t-HD5J2xY Excerpt: Stephan on the NAP https://youtu.be/kbW57Ca9kNk Join the patreon at https://patreon.com/breakthecyclejs Join Subscribestar at https://Subscribestar.com/breakthecyc... Tips at https://paypal.me/JoshuaSmithChair2020 available on all of your favorite podcast apps. https://toplobsta.com for dope gear. https://lorenzotti.coffee for delicious Italian coffee thank you to Whiskey Grenade for the great jams. Support the stream: https://streamlabs.com/fightthedespots Discussed: Disinvited From Cato Twitter post below: I think you should realize you are talking to a heavyweight and should be grateful I am devoting a few minutes to you, and take advantage of it, and be respectful and not a punk. That's what I think. — Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) September 9, 2020 GROK SHOWNOTES Show Notes for KOL349 | CouchStreams Ep. 58 with Joshua Smith Episode Overview: In this episode of Break the Cycle (originally aired on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/live/w9t-HD5J2xY), host Joshua Smith interviews Stephan Kinsella, a former Ludwig von Mises Institute scholar, founder of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, and author of Against Intellectual Property. The discussion covers Kinsella’s journey to libertarianism, his staunch opposition to intellectual property (IP), the impact of patent laws on industries like pharmaceuticals, and his thoughts on emerging libertarian trends like post-libertarianism and Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s philosophy. The episode is packed with insights into libertarian theory, legal systems, and practical implications of IP laws, interspersed with lively audience engagement via super chats. Segment 1: Introduction and Kinsella’s Background (0:00–14:56) 0:03–1:06: Intro music and Joshua Smith’s opening remarks, welcoming listeners to the show. 1:06–2:28: Smith introduces the episode, plugs sponsors (lorenzotti.coffee, toplobsta.com, anthemplanning.com), and expresses excitement about the guest. 2:28–3:29: Smith introduces Stephan Kinsella, highlighting his Mises Institute background, founding of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, and his book Against Intellectual Property. Kinsella confirms he’s COVID-free after contracting it at Porcfest. 3:29–6:09: Kinsella shares his journey from electrical engineering at LSU to becoming a patent lawyer and anarcho-capitalist. He explains how his interest in libertarianism developed in high school, complemented by his legal training, particularly in Louisiana’s unique Roman law-influenced system. 6:09–9:02: Discussion shifts to Louisiana’s distinct legal system, rooted in French and Spanish civil law, contrasting with common law systems elsewhere in the U.S. Kinsella notes its influence on his libertarian legal scholarship. 9:02–14:56: Smith recounts his experiences running for Libertarian Party chair and his shift to a more confrontational online presence. Kinsella discusses his own brash online style, emphasizing bluntness for efficiency and dismissing insincere arguments. Segment 2: Intellectual Property and Copyright Issues (14:56–29:03) 14:56–18:05: Kinsella outlines his core argument against IP: it violates libertarian principles by granting others control over your property without consent, akin to a non-consensual negative easement. He compares this to physical trespass or battery. 18:05–21:00: He elaborates on the harms of IP, including how copyright stifles free speech and patents hinder innovation, impoverishing society by slowing technological progress. 21:00–23:37: Smith brings up pharmaceutical patents, and Kinsella critiques the “unholy alliance” of patents, FDA regulations, and tort systems that inflate drug costs and prioritize artificial drugs over natural remedies. He references Dr. David Martin’s work on coronavirus patents, suggesting profit motives intertwine with government mandates. 23:37–26:13: Super chat questions touch on vaccine magnetism (a jest) and patent waivers for COVID vaccines. Kinsella debunks the notion of China “stealing” U.S. IP and questions the timeline of vaccine patents, noting patents typically take years to issue. 26:13–29:03: Discussion of Martin Shkreli’s case, where Kinsella clarifies it was an FDA-granted monopoly, not a patent, that allowed price gouging. He notes Shkreli’s actions exposed systemic flaws, though he was vilified for it. Segment 3: Open Source, Right to Repair, and Post-Libertarianism (29:03–43:56) 29:03–32:02: Kinsella addresses open-source software as a counterexample to claims that copyright is necessary for profit, but critiques “copyleft” licenses that rely on copyright to enforce restrictions. He prefers unrestricted sharing (e.g., CC0 licenses). 32:02–35:07: A super chat on “right to repair” prompts Kinsella to criticize it as a band-aid for copyright’s flaws. He opposes forcing manufacturers to reveal proprietary information but supports abolishing copyright to enable third-party repairs naturally. 35:07–36:00: A humorous super chat about “IP Freely” is acknowledged as a joke, referencing a comedic author pseudonym. 36:00–40:05: Smith raises “post-libertarianism,” a trend questioning the non-aggression principle (NAP). Kinsella defends the NAP as a shorthand for property rules, arguing that critics either misunderstand it or favor aggression, aligning with statism. 40:05–43:56: A super chat asks about resisting government overreach. Kinsella views this as a strategic issue, doubting isolated acts of defiance will dismantle the state. He advocates for broader cultural shifts toward liberty. Segment 4: Hoppe’s Popularity and Libertarian Theory (43:56–59:00) 43:56–47:01: A super chat prompts discussion of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s rising popularity. Kinsella finds the “memeification” of Hoppe amusing but attributes it to his intriguing personality and ideas, despite smear campaigns labeling him a monarchist or fascist. 47:01–50:08: Kinsella explains Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, which argues that peaceful discourse presupposes libertarian principles like self-ownership and property rights. Any ethic violating peace contradicts the context of civilized argument. 50:08–54:04: Addressing Hoppe’s alleged monarchism, Kinsella clarifies Hoppe is an anarchist, not a monarchist. Hoppe argues monarchy can be better than democracy in some respects (e.g., long-term incentives vs. short-term populism), but neither is ideal compared to anarchy. 54:04–59:00: Kinsella shares his toughest debates (none on IP, but challenging discussions on argumentation ethics) and critiques debate formats. A super chat about protecting artwork leads Kinsella to argue copying isn’t theft; only dishonesty (e.g., claiming authorship) warrants stigma. Segment 5: Brazilian Bucket Challenge and Future Projects (59:00–1:07:10) 59:00–1:00:39: A super chat about the “Brazilian Bucket Challenge” reveals it as a meme to encourage reading Hoppe and Mises by claiming hidden “bucket” references. Kinsella shares his participation, initially skeptical but amused. 1:00:39–1:02:14: Kinsella recommends Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty, Economic Controversies, and The Free Market Reader for libertarian newcomers, praising their clarity and insight. 1:02:14–1:04:05: Kinsella outlines future projects: an anthology of anarchist essays, a curated collection of his writings (Law in a Libertarian World), and a new IP book, Copy This Book. He notes his semi-retirement, allowing more time for libertarian work. 1:04:05–1:07:10: Smith closes by thanking Kinsella, plugging sponsors, and promoting upcoming episodes with Tom Woods, Brad Palumbo, and Austin Peterson. He encourages support via super chats and memberships for exclusive streams. Where to Find Stephan Kinsella: Website: stephankinsella.com IP Resources: c4sif.org Social Media: @NSKinsella (Twitter, Facebook) Support Break the Cycle: Sponsors: lorenzotti.coffee, toplobsta.com, anthemplanning.com (use BTC for discounts). Join Patreon/Subscribestar: patreon.com/breakthecyclejs, subscribestar.com/breakthecyclejs for exclusive streams and discounts. Link to Episode: YouTube Podcast Page: stephankinsella.com/as_paf_podcast/kol349-couchstreams-ep-58-joshua-smith/ TRANSCRIPT 0:03 [Music] 0:14 so [Music] 0:28 oh driving in my car helicopter rides 0:48 [Music] 0:56 is [Music] 1:06 hello hello hello and welcome to another episode of break the cycle with me your host 1:11 joshua smith i hope everyone's having a wonderful tuesday night we got an awesome show as per the usual for you 1:17 i'm just super stoked on this entire week of shows it's it's just amazing to me that uh any of these guys 1:22 want to come on my podcast first of all but uh i guess we're i guess we're growing pretty fast uh so that's a good thing uh let's talk 1:29 about some sponsors of course we've got lorenzotti.coffee for all your delicious italian coffee needs delivered directly 1:34 to your door bring the taste of italy home use btc to check out for a 10 discount and of course my friend my 1:40 partner on the show top lobster.com one of the greatest guys when it comes to graphic stuff he hand draws 1:46 everything check them out today you can get this awesome custom uh dark

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 348. I sat down with my friend Aaron Voisine, of BRD (formerly Breadwallet), to discuss how the average worker/saver would invest and save in a Bitcoin world. Would they hold some stocks? Real estate? Bonds? Or would they keep close to 100% of their savings in cash, as many bitcoiners seem to assume? And related issues. I doubt people would keep most of their savings in cash since they would chase higher returns and also diversify away from some risks unique to monetary assets. Voisine dissents. I have questions, not answers, while Voisine thinks he has answers. Kinsella, Aaron Graham, Aaron Voisine, Juan Carpio, at Bitcoin 2021, Miami Kinsella, Aaron Lasher, Aaron Voisine, Aaron Graham, Juan Carpio, chilling during Bitcoin 2021, Miami https://youtu.be/g24jBL81vQ8

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 259-2. Recorded Feb. 8, 2019. On Feb. 8, 2019, I delivered a talk at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum in Manchester NH: KOL259 | “How To Think About Property”, New Hampshire Liberty Forum 2019. While there I was a guest on the Vin Armani and Dave Butler (of Vin and Dave's Destination Unknown podcast) livestream of the Free State Project's New Hampshire Liberty Forum, Day 1 -- we discussed government versus the state, intellectual property, and related issues. Youtube below. I left in the cool "New Hampshire" song on the video excerpt below, but trimmed most of it out for the podcast feed. https://youtu.be/1yvHTPs9Gmw Full episode featuring other guests:

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 479. Related: Libertarian Answer Man: Restrictive Covenants and Homeowners Associations (HOAs) Libertarian Answer Man: Restrictive Covenants, Reserved Rights, and Copyright KOL479 | Co-Ownership Revisited: Property Rights, Exclusion, Contracts, and Edge Cases, with Nick Sinard KOL354 | CDA §230, Being “Part of the State,” Co-ownership, Causation, Defamation, with Nick Sinard Libertarian Answer Man: Corporations, Trusts, HOAs, and Private Law Codes in a Private Law Society 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. ...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 347. My appearance on a new youtube channel, This Time I'm Curious (TTIC) with Jesse Munson, Episode 1 (recorded July 4, 2021). We talked about a variety of topics -- the history/evolution of libertarianism and my involvement in it, Ayn Rand, the Ron Paul movement, animal rights, AI consciousness and AI rights, artificial meat, quantum mechanics, UFO's, music, movies, guilty Youtube pleasures, Objectivism, The Fountainhead, Kinsella's place in the libertarian movement, alcohol addiction, etc. https://youtu.be/a8fli8AbNXY

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 346. I was a guest on the Tatiana Show, with host Tatiana Moroz. (Released July 1, 2021, recorded June 30, 2021). Transcript below. Youtube: https://youtu.be/GX2QolLvPSE Original youtube: https://youtu.be/HSIIzKGk_aw From her shownotes: COPYRIGHT & SATOSHI’S LEGACY WITH STEPHAN KINSELLA OF THE OPEN CRYPTO ALLIANCE On June 29, 2021, a UK court found that Australian computer scientist Craig Wright is the proper copyright owner of the Bitcoin Whitepaper, awarding initial damages in excess of $48,000 to Wright and demanding that Bitcoin.org remove the Whitepaper from its site. Guest Stephan Kinsella of the Open Crypto Alliance joins Tatiana today to talk about the decision and why it reveals all the most troubling problems with the government-run patent, trademark & copyright system. He discusses the background of the case and the personal financial interest that he believes is driving Wright’s copyright trolling campaign. And he also gives his own thoughts on Bitcoin, blockchain technology, smart contracts and more. If you like the program, subscribe today via Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen! About the Guest: (Norman) Stephan Kinsella is an attorney and libertarian writer in Houston. He was previously General Counsel for Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., a partner with Duane Morris, and adjunct law professor at South Texas College of Law. A registered patent attorney and former adjunct professor at South Texas College of Law, he received an LL.M. (international business law) from King’s College London-University of London, a JD from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center at LSU, and BSEE and MSEE degrees from LSU. He has spoken, lectured and published widely on both legal topics, including intellectual property law and international law, and also on various areas of libertarian legal theory. Libertarian-related publications include Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (co-editor, with Jörg Guido Hülsmann, Mises Institute, 2009); Against Intellectual Property (Mises Institute, 2008); and Law in a Libertarian World: Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Papinian Press, 2021). Forthcoming works include Copy This Book: The Case for Abolishing Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2022). Kinsella’s legal publications include International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide (Oxford, 2020); Online Contract Formation (Oceana, 2004); Trademark Practice and Forms (Oxford & West/Thomson Reuters 2001–2013); World Online Business Law (Oxford, 2003–2011); Digest of Commercial Laws of the World (Oxford, 1998-2013); Protecting Foreign Investment Under International Law: Legal Aspects of Political Risk (Oceana Publications, 1997); and Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary (Quid Pro Books, 2011). Kinsella is a co-founder and member of the Advisory Council for the Open Crypto Alliance (2020–), a member of the Editorial Board of Reason Papers (2009–), a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Molinari Review (2014–), a member of the Advisory Board of the Lexington Books (Rowman & Littlefield) series Capitalist Thought: Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (2013–), Founder and Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (2010–present), and legal advisor to LBRY (2015–). Previously, he was Founder and Executive Editor of Libertarian Papers (2009–2018), a Senior Fellow for the Ludwig von Mises Institute (2009–2013), a member of the Advisory Council of the Government Waste and Over-regulation Council of the Our America Initiative (2014–2017), Book Review Editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies (Mises Institute, 2000–2004), a member of the Editorial Board of The Journal of Peace, Prosperity & Freedom (Liberty Australia, 2012–2016), a member of the Advisory Panel of the Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) (2009–2012), and served as Chair of the Computer Law Subcommittee of the Federalist Society’s Intellectual Property Practice Group. More Info: Tatiana Moroz – https://tatianamoroz.com Crypto Media Hub – https://cryptomediahub.com Open Crypto Alliance – https://opencryptoalliance.org Stephen Kinsella – https://stephankinsella.com TRANSCRIPT Copyright and Satoshi’s Legacy with Stephan Kinsella of the Open Crypto Alliance Stephan Kinsella and Tatiana Moroz The Tatiana Show, June 30, 2021 00:00:01 [intro music] 00:00:17 TATIANA MOROZ: Hello everybody, and welcome to this last-minute special edition of the Tatiana Show.  I’m here with Stephan Kinsella.  He is a patent attorney and a libertarian writer, and we just ran into each other at PorcFest, so I wanted to catch up about that and then get to this breaking news about Satoshi being Craig Wright, which I don’t even know what to say about all that.  So you probably know something about that.  We actually had you on the show before.  You were talking about some of these kind of patent trolls in blockchain.  But before we dive into all this stuff, if you can please give some people your background, a little bit about how you got involved in all this stuff and just some overview about your experience. 00:01:05 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Sure.  Well, I’m a long-time libertarian since 1982, so I’ve been interested in this stuff for a long time.  I’m also a patent attorney with an electrical engineering background, so I deal in high-tech patent law, so I’m interested in technology, and so I got interested in Bitcoin early on and libertarianism and Austrian economics.  They all tie together for me.  So I’m a member also of the Open Crypto Alliance, which is a group that is trying to fight the patent troll threat to the Bitcoin and blockchain ecosystem primarily by nChain and Craig Wright and other companies. 00:01:43 And Craig Wright is also apparently a copyright troll, so that’s what the news item today was about.  And as we talked about last time, and as I’ve talked about many times, although I’m a patent attorney, I’ve long been an opponent of the intellectual property system, patent and copyright law.  And I’ve been warning for a while that this would happen, and it has happened now, and it’s happening now. 00:02:04 TATIANA MOROZ: I’d love to hear a little bit more about that because normally – I even did an episode a long time ago I think with Jeffrey Tucker and John Light.  And we were talking about IP in the music world, and that’s a pretty contentious topic that I think we could do on our own with that episode.  But can you broadly explain why would somebody not want patents or copyright?  Doesn’t that give artists money?  I mean shouldn’t people want to have some kind of incentive for their work?  I know it’s kind of asking you to explain a really, really big thing in a short while, but let’s give it a shot. 00:02:39 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, I mean lots of things give artists money or give other people money.  I mean the COVID payments right now are going to lots of people.  And you could say, well, why would you want to stop giving people free money?  I mean isn’t that good to give them money?  The question for libertarians is one of justice.  The intellectual property thing can be explained for normal people by explaining to them some principles of private property in all this and explaining why IP law is incompatible with that. 00:03:07 But for libertarians, I’m going to take that for granted.  If you favor free markets and private property rights, if you oppose state censorship, if you are in favor of competition, then you ought to be opposed to patent and copyright law because these are government intrusions into the free market that reduce competition, restrict competition, and censor free speech.  They’re not what they’re sold as.  They’re not really systems that help the small guy, help the artist.  They are really rooted in the government – in copyright, they’re rooted in the government practice of censorship, that is, state control of what can be printed. 00:03:45 And for patents, they were rooted in state grants of monopoly privilege to protect people from competition, and that’s what they’ve turned into now.  So they basically reduce and impede innovation, make us all poorer, reduce competition.  They harm the consumer, and copyright law threatens internet freedom.  Websites are taken down all the time.  Books can’t be published, and the white paper is now being – going to be taken down from bitcoin.org because of a state court using force in the name of copyright law.  So this is a perfect example of how copyright law is censorship. 00:04:28 TATIANA MOROZ: How does that work?  Because – okay, so I don’t pay attention to Craig Wright.  I’ve got a couple random friends tell me that BSC has some kind of utility and it’s okay in certain ways.  I’m like, yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever.  But I don’t pay attention to this big fight, and I never thought we would come to this point where, all of a sudden, there are some headlines saying that we’re not allowed to use it on bitcoin.org anymore because it belongs to Craig Wright.  And I haven’t taken the time to truly delve in, and I think some people are feeling similarly to me.  So can you explain to me who gave who the authority to decide that he is – and are they saying he’s definitely Satoshi and so nobody is allowed to use his work?  How does this – what’s happening here? 00:05:09 STEPHAN KINSELLA: No.  No, he’s not – as far as I know, he’s not Satoshi.  It wouldn’t matter if he was, but he’s not as far as I can tell.  And this legal outcome doesn’t indicate that whatsoever.  Of course, they’re going to claim that it does because they’re dishonest.  They did this recently.  So the way it works is copyright is granted automatically under almost all nations’ copyright law, which is all compatible with each other under the Berne Convent

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 345. Related: Structural Safeguards to Limit Legislation and State Power Constitutional Structures in Defense of Freedom (ASC 1998) Randy Barnett’s “Federalism Amendment”–A Counterproposal; and related posts How to Fix the US 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) Libertarian Nation and Related Projects Update:  See The Universal Principles of Liberty (Aug. 14, 2025) and Libertarian Nation and Related Projects (cataloging various libertarian "free nation" and related projects) This was my talk delivered today (June 26, 2021) at PorcFest 2021: "Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution,” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code." The notes that I roughly followed are below; pix also below. Transcript below. For a related talk, see KOL359 | State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PFS 2021) Youtube https://youtu.be/hK6LyjRvvCk This is the video with better audio added after from my iphone recording, with the help of Jacob Lovell. Below is the original with passable audio https://youtu.be/6qzJXBWLhTA Related: Structural Safeguards to Limit Legislation and State Power Constitutional Structures in Defense of Freedom (ASC 1998) Randy Barnett’s “Federalism Amendment”–A Counterproposal; and related posts How to Fix the US 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 description from the PorcFest website (which will probably disappear at some time in the future): Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution” —————– When: Sat, 12:00P _(60m) Speaker: Stephan Kinsella {Website} {Pic}, An American intellectual property attorney and Austro-anarcho-libertarian writer and speaker for 25 years. He has spoken, lectured and published widely on various areas of libertarian legal theory such as rights theory, anarchism, contract theory, intellectual property, and on legal topics such as intellectual property law and international law. His legal works include International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide (Oxford University Press, 2020) and Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary (Quid Pro Books, 2011); his libertarian writing includes Against Intellectual Property (Mises Institute 2008) and the forthcoming Law in a Libertarian World (Papinian Press, 2021). Forthcoming works include Copy This Book: The Case for Abolishing Intellectual Property (2022), and a systematic, codified statement of libertarian principles as an alternative to constitutions and committee-prepared political platforms. For Whom: Constitutionalists; secessionists; Federal reformers; decentralists; polycentrists; anarcho-capitalists. Description: State constitutions, including the US Constitution, are not libertarian. The purpose of the US Constitution was to establish a new, powerful, central state, not to protect individual rights. Efforts to draft “libertarian constitutions” are also often flawed, as when they presuppose and legitimate a state or a territory owned by a single owner (Liberland). Does the idea of a “libertarian constitution” make sense? What kind of codification or statement of libertarian principles is appropriate? {More} Where: Anth: Anthem Theater, OfficeBld   ❧ TRANSCRIPT Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code Stephan Kinsella PorcFest 2021, Lancaster NH June 26, 2021 00:00:01 W: … published by the Mises Institute in 2008 and the forthcoming Law and the Libertarian World.  So Stephan, I’ll let you take it away about state constitutions. 00:00:10 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay.  Thanks a lot.  If you can’t hear me, let me know.  I have no mic.  I speak kind of loud and kind of fast even though… 00:00:17 W: If we need to turn it up we can, so let us know. 00:00:19 STEPHAN KINSELLA: All right, so my talk is – I’ll explain the title as we get into this: Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution.”  So I prepared a libertarian constitution, and I hope to cover as much of its 18 parts and 45 pages as possible in this next hour.  So part one, section A, subsection 1: definitions.  I’m just joking.  I’m not going to read my constitution.  I haven’t even finished writing it yet.  I read this to my wife and she said, Is this what you geeks think is funny?  I said we’ll see.  I said half the people in the audience might be relieved, but the other half might be, damn, I really wanted to hear a libertarian constitution read to me point by point. 00:01:03 I’m going to talk about the idea of constitutions and libertarianism and whether the whole idea makes sense at all.  So I’ve been a libertarian since about 1982, and I’ve seen so many libertarian – utopian libertarian projects that I can’t even remember them all.  Most of them are scams I think or failures, and I’ve been involved in a few of them, so I’m just going to go through a few.  Some of you guys may be familiar with some of these, but this is just going back to my memory archives from the ‘80s. 00:01:34 So there’s, of course, always the idea to have a cruise ship type of nation like – now it’s called seasteading or Blueseed.  But the earlier version was called Oceania, the Atlantis Project.  And then those same people that started Oceania years later started something called Project Lifeboat, which is an attempt to create a spaceship so we could save the human race from the singularity that Vernor Vinge, a libertarian sci-fi writer, was talking about.  Occasionally, crazy guys homesteading oil rigs that are abandoned and calling it a nation. 00:02:05 There’s, on occasion, private justice and arbitration and common law groups that crop up.  There’s one that cropped up a couple years ago called the Creative Common Law project, and the guy that started it was on Tom Woods’ Show, and I thought it was intriguing.  So we got in touch, and he got me on board as an advisor.  It was called Creative Common Law 1.0: Anarcho-Capitalism.  And then a few months ago I looked up the website to update my resume, and everything had been changed, and now it’s moved to Creative Common Law 2.0: Anarcho-Socialism and Syndicalism.  And the guy told me he changed his mind.  I’m like – I’m always wary of what I call way station libertarians, guys that came into it like ten minutes ago because I like – let it sit for five years and see if you’re still here. 00:02:54 Libertarian law professor, Tom Bell, has created something called Ulex, an open source legal operating system. [Libertarian Nation and Related Projects (cataloging various libertarian "free nation" and related projects)] He’s trying to get people to collaborate to develop kind of a libertarian-ish common law framework.  LiberLand, which I actually helped draft an early constitution for, which we published an article on called “The Voluntaryist Constitution.”  Galt’s Gulch Chile, which some of you guys may have heard of, which I think it was a scam that ended in a disaster.  I think my friend – well… 00:03:24 Honduras economic zones – they were trying to get some kind of free market enclaves there for awhile.  I was awhile associated with General Governance, which was started by David Johnson who is now a Bitcoin guy.  And the idea was to work with Indian tribes in the US and leverage their special constitutional status to try to extend their free market – or enclaves to – so American citizens could work there without paying federal tax.  And he promised me that this would be – the whole country would be libertarian within nine months, and this was ten years ago.  He abandoned it to do Bitcoin.  We actually met with the Indian tribes north of Houston, and they were interested. 00:04:05 But the Free State Project is another one of course, which is having some success.  There is a constitution written called the Libertarian Constitution on the National Constitution Center.  It’s written by some libertarians like Tim Sandefur and some others.  Roderick Long even made a stab at it even though he’s an anarchist.  It was kind of a Swiss-style model.  He wrote it years ago. 00:04:28 And then there’s others.  Even Dennis Pratt here has written something on the Bill of Rights.  So as I said, I’ve been dragooned into helping with some of these like General Governance, and there’s a Mississippi legislator named Joel Bomgar, a big Christian guy, a nice guy, successful businessman, and a libertarian.  And he wanted me to help him draft a constitution. 00:04:46 LiberLand – I swam with Wit, the president, in Turkey at Hoppe’s conference a couple years ago, and he went to the bottom to get a rock about 30 feet down.  And I tried to follow and I almost busted my eardrums, and he said, no, you have to push out with your lungs.  I said thanks for telling me now.  Anyway, others I’ve forgotten.  So they all – these guys always talk about perfecting the Constitution or improving the Constitution or writing a better constitution. 00:05:14 But why do we even use the word constitution as libertarians as if it’s a good thing?  So the modern libertarian movement in the US started I’d say in the ‘50s with Ayn Rand principally and then others like Milton Friedman and Leonard Read and Mises and Rothbard.  And because of this American base and Ayn Rand’s reverence for the American system as opposed to the Soviet system she left, there’s always been a reverence among libertarian circles for the Declaration, the War of Independence, the Constitution. 00:05:48 I mean the libertarian party uses the frickin’ liberty bell, the Statue of Liberty,...