Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 354. Libertarian Nicholas Sinard asked me to field some questions about the referenced issues, so we did so. Update: some of these issues also discussed in Libertarian Answer Man: Restrictive Covenants and Homeowners Associations (HOAs) and Libertarian Answer Man: Restrictive Covenants, Reserved Rights, and Copyright. https://youtu.be/54pMdixfWTI Relevant links: No, Libertarians, We Should NOT Abolish the CDA §230 and DMCA Safe Harbors! Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Intellectual Property Is Macy’s Part of the State? A Critique of Left Deviationists 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 YouTube—who else? Amazon, I don't know, fantastic Amazon accounts, Apple—basically the FANG and, I guess, other companies, why are they part of the state? I mean, the older reason from 10, 20 years ago would be, you know, they're corporations, they have limited liability, or they influence policy, or they have lobbyists in D.C. They're in bed with the state, they'll say. I mean, the chain of causation is not always clear, admittedly.

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

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

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

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

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 346. I was a guest on the Tatiana Show, with host Tatiana Moroz. (Released July 1, 2021, recorded June 30, 2021). Transcript below. Youtube: 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,

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,