Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 335. I was interviewed by Paul Kramer of the Youth in Policy Podcast. Youtube highlights version below:

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 334. A libertarian named Sebastian is researching the issue of "habeas data" from a libertarian perspective, and wanted to discuss with me. So we did. This involves issues and questions such as: Proposition: Habeas Data is emerging in some countries as a legal or constitutional writ predicated on a personal autonomy right to one's personal data. From a libertarian perspective, is this a type of bodily/personal autonomy "property" right? What if the data is held by a public official/state organization and the habeas data remedy is limited to access/correcton/deletion from a public database? Is this libertarian? Is our private data always private vis-a-vis the never claim-of-right of the State?  Is that at odds with a bodily autonomy view of privacy/private property (information) rights? This is of interest as the Latin American/OAS writ is trending toward personal information as a kind of personal (bodily) autonomy right. What is the relation between Habeas Data and Right to Know/Right to Truth in Human Rights Law? How does the notion of Habeas Data relate to the libertarian critique of intellectual property and ownership of information? Related: Right to be forgotten My Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary From Sebastian: "A bit tangential but if Right to Truth ever includes Right to The Law: In Civil Law Systems, iura novit curia, or "The Court Knows the Law""

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 274-2. This is the Q&A panel following my talk [KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019)] for the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society, Bodrum, Turkey (Sept. 12–17, 2019). For the four panelists' talks, see the Program, or the PFS 2019 YouTube Playlist. Transcript below. Q&A with Hülsmann, Dürr, Kinsella, Hoppe (PFS 2019) Unedited Transcript, with Guido Hülsmann, David Dürr, Stephan Kinsella, Hans-Hermann Hoppe Sept. 15, 2019 00:00:09 M (Rahim Taghizadegan): Hans, congratulations.  Your speech was really good food for thought, and because I want to hear more of it, I’ll try to challenge you and just create a little bit.  You made it seem as if going from a state of more culture as human beings to a state of culture somehow was a conscious agreement between human beings to find tools or artifices to reach the purposes.  And to me it seems like too much of separation between nature and culture because we see among animals quite a lot of complicated languages. 00:00:43 I call them languages, of course nothing compared to the complexity of the human being.  We see tools used by animals, and of course by our ancestors.  So it looks more like a spectrum which emerged out of our nature, and of course then complexities or at some certain level of complexity you can call it a more interesting culture and a more complex culture.  But I think you focus too much on the gulf between the nature and culture. 00:01:14 HANS-HERMANN HOPPE: I would doubt that we can speak of animals using instruments.  We can give completely causal explanations for them doing certain things.  It has also never happened that animals were constructing something that they cannot do by nature.  Men can construct instruments that make him – enable him to do things that he could not do by nature.  We can construct a car.  We construct an airplane.  Yes, we have beavers doing – building dams, but no beaver has ever done anything else but building dams or come up with, oh no, we just divert the flow of the river or something of that kind. 00:02:00 So the explanation that we can give for animal behavior, we would not need any reference to human or teleological vocabulary of goals and means and ends and success and failure.  We can – we do that because sometimes we like animals and like to describe them in human terms, but we could easily explain all of that in causal terms just as much.  Also, when animals learn something that they didn’t know how to do before like circus animals or something like that, that we can – again, this learning we can describe in a causal way—reinforcement, repetition, beating them, or not beating them, giving them a piece of sugar and whatever it is.  We never need human terminology to explain their behavior, but in our case, we do.  That is – that would be my point. 00:03:06 GUIDO HÜLSMANN: Actually, the naturalistic position can also be challenged that there are many natural phenomena that we cannot truly explain without a teleological element, such as the function of an eye for example.  Whenever we talk of a function, an eye, a liver, any human organ, a cell, DNA, information content and so on, you cannot just – the old terminology cannot just explain this in terms of the material characteristics and the so-called efficient qualities so what came before, and then what came after.  You need to have a teleological argument. 00:03:45 [Audience member]: I want to ask whether you will agree and perhaps expand upon this idea that another couple of good examples besides language are law, in particular, complex legal systems that emerge spontaneously over time.  And I think that this argument actually was made by Hayek and Sudha Shenoy as well.  And also, as a second example, as a second additional example, religion, and in particular one aspect of religion, that is, liturgy, different liturgies that embody sophisticated meanings that are transcendent.  I think that these are another couple of examples that can work just as well as language. 00:04:36 HANS-HERMANN HOPPE: Of course I agree.  I only took language, so to speak, the most important meta institution that makes lots of other institutions possible.  So there’s no disagreement here.  I – last year I spoke here for two hours, and I thought that might have been a little bit too much, so this time I wanted to be short and sweet.  I don’t know if the sweet thing did occur, but short it was.  There’s no disagreement whatsoever.  I just didn’t have time to go through all other aspects of culture besides the aspect of language. 00:05:21 DAVID DÜRR: I would like to take your example of law, which interests me most.  By the way, I’m not that much on your line, as you know, concerning this question, nature versus culture or however you call it.  And I namely mean that the law could be an interesting example to make another viewpoint.  Many speak about natural law, and this means something.  This means that these are principles that have to be found, not created by man. 00:06:06 Often when one says human law is something agreed upon by man, things like that, but I would say it’s more convincing or more consequent to approach that subject by trying to understand the regularities that are there in nature, regularities of behavior that, in this situation, this reaction will come up.  Even though within – so to speak in the inner view of such a conflict, then there are arguments.  There are purposes.  There are normative goals, things you were mentioning. 00:06:52 Even though within these procedures, things like that happen, I would say from the outer view so to speak these are natural processes.  And they are highly – terribly high complex.  They are so complex that we never will have any chance to get them.  So I think there we are not in the argument or in the aspect.  You mentioned that maybe sometime, but that will be later, we will have the possibility to catch the whole picture or something like that.  I will say we never will reach that possibility.  It will always be beyond our capacity, brain capacity or so.  But nevertheless, or I would say it’s not a cause that it’s a natural phenomenon. 00:07:54 HANS-HERMANN HOPPE: When we speak of natural law, we of course speak of something that has a purpose for purposefully acting individuals.  When we speak of something being a conflict, a conflict is something entirely different than banging this bottle against a glass.  We can, of course, metaphorically also say there’s a conflict between that bottle and the glass that it is – that we interpret certain events as conflicts has something to do that we do have purposes. 00:08:36 And one of our purposes is, of course, to overcome conflicts because conflicts are considered by us as some sort of problem that should be solved.  This is not something that either the glass or the bottle considers as something that should be solved in some way.  But, of course, I can say that.  But when I say that, that is just metaphorically speaking so. 00:09:07 M (Johann Gevers): I completely agree with the importance of purpose and teleology, and at the same time, I think I’m more Raheem and Dapheet about the continuum within complex systems, complex adaptive systems.  We see there’s the central concept of emergence, and that cannot be explained from the lower levels, so you have a qualitative shift, but it’s nevertheless a natural process.  And to get more specific, in animals, in the recent 10, 15 years, we’ve now discovered that they can not just use tools but actually even put together tools that are multi-stage tools so that they would have to see that if I do this plus this plus this, then it will enable me to get the banana off the tree. 00:09:57 HANS-HERMANN HOPPE: I think those are all metaphorical descriptions of things that can be fully explained in causal terms.  I think the most important philosopher who deals with this is Peter Janich.  Those people who can read – most of his books were only written in German, but those people who can read German I can recommend the book that deals most directly with this issue.  He has written many books that deal with it more indirectly.  It was called Der Mensch und andere Tiere, who also just shows that all of these interpretations, they use instruments.  And so this is all bull, to be drastic.  Yes, you can, of course, describe what they do in terms as if they make an instrument and then they make another instrument in order to reach some further distant goal. (( Update from Kinsella: See references to Janich etc. in Hoppe on Falsificationism, Empiricism, and Apriorism and Protophysics; also Hoppe, "My Discovery of Human Action and of Mises as a Philosopher". )) 00:11:05 But you can also describe that in a completely different, simple way.  And what I said before, no animal of any species has ever constructed an instrument that was entirely new, never happened in that species before.  Mankind has constructed artifacts that did not exist ever, completely new things, which all of a sudden become common instruments with the example of cars and airplanes.  Men cannot fly by nature, but we can fly.  Men cannot run very fast, but we can move in a very fast way.  No animal has ever invented an instrument that made it do things that it couldn’t do by nature. 00:12:02 M (Gevers): One question for Guido and one for Stephan.  Guido, at one point you mentioned that primitive tribes have neither a concept of property nor a concept of gifts.  And I’m curious if this is really true, and this is kind of in a continuation of the previous thread because, in the 1960s, Robert Ardrey wrote this book, The Territorial Imperative.  He was an anthropologist, and he also studied animals, and the subtitle of the book is The Animal Origins of Property and Nations,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 333. This is my interview by Jeff Tucker (Oct. 9, 2010), which preceded my first presentation of the Mises Academy course “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics” (Nov.-Dec. 2010). For the second presentation in 2011, see KOL172 | “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics: Lecture 1: History and Law” (Mises Academy, 2011). Transcript below. Youtube: https://youtu.be/-XlKNStzoLs Understanding IP: An Interview with Stephan Kinsella, Mises Daily (Oct. 21, 2010) 10/21/2010Jeffrey A. TuckerStephan Kinsella Jeffrey Tucker: Stephan Kinsella, it's a pleasure to have you here today. Welcome. Stephan Kinsella: Thank you. It's good to be here. Tucker: We're going to talk about your class for the Mises Academy, on intellectual property. Kinsella: Yes, I'm looking forward to it. We've been planning it for quite a while, as you know. I think the first course will be on November 1st for six weeks and then we'll take a week off. We'll have time to go in depth into many of the issues about intellectual property and its relationship to libertarianism, economic theory, and various other areas. Tucker: Why is this an important issue? Kinsella: Well, it's becoming a more and more important issue as we've seen in our circles and as seen on the internet. Daily, we see horror stories and crazy examples of abuses of IP. People are starting to wonder if these are really abuses of IP or if there's something wrong with IP itself. In the past, free-market economists and libertarians have sort of given this issue a pass. They took it for granted. It's been in a corner all by itself. Now people are wondering, and as we start looking more closely at it, we can see that a lot of the assumptions about IP have been wrong. Tucker: It's striking you mention the history of thought here and why this issue is sort of crystallizing in our time, especially with your pioneering monograph on that subject, Against Intellectual Property. It's generally true, isn't it, that that theoretical element of economics or law or whatever catches up when the practical need for that new theory comes along. For example, the theory of money and credit was made necessary by the advent of central banking. So, 50 years ago, IP wasn't that big a deal. Kinsella: I think that's completely true. Mises said something I've always loved. (Everyone focuses on a few of his statements that other people don't see, because he has so many great aphorisms and things.) He pointed out that in his view economics is purely deductive reasoning from a priori categories. Plus, then you explicitly introduce certain assumptions to make it interesting. [See my post Mises: Keep It Interesting.] "Interesting" was something I always focused on. So, in other words, we could talk hypothetically about a barter society forever, but it won't get us that far. So let's introduce the assumption that there is money in society. It's not a priori that there is money, but there could be money and, if there is, then certain things follow from it. I think that likewise in libertarian theory certain things become interesting at a certain point. In the past, as you mentioned in your talk yesterday here at the Supporters' Summit, it was not as easy as it is now to replicate information. There was sort of a tie in previous times between a good that was produced, like a book, and the information in it. The information in the book was in the physical copy of the book, so you could easily find a way to sell that. Now, with information being so easy to copy — And, of course, as Cory Doctorow mentions in one of his articles and speeches, do we think we are going to get to a point where it is going to get harder to copy and to spread information? No, it's only going to get easier. These things have made people confront the issue of the morality and the politics of sharing information. Tucker: It's not only technological advances, it's also dramatic changes in policy that have occurred over the last 15–20 years. Kinsella: Yes. Copyright and patent keep getting worse. The Western countries are twisting the arms of emerging economies like China to adopt a draconian Western-style intellectual property. This ACTA treaty that is coming up is terrible. It probably will be passed and it will impose protections around the world similar to what we have in the United States in the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Tucker: Is this enforced by the so-called World Intellectual Property Organization? Kinsella: The WTO will have a role in it, yes. The WTO is the World Trade Organization and the WIPO is the World Intellectual Property Organization. I'm not sure of their relationship to this. Tucker: But it's a UN organization, so you've got really international teeth growing here. Kinsella: Correct. Right. Tucker: And the prospect for unbelievable abuse. And you know what's striking about this to me? Here you have a sector of vast state expansion and imposition on individual liberty, and it's occurring in the name of property rights. Kinsella: Right. This is what is striking. When you start looking at this, you'll see that even libertarians, for a long time, have regarded patent and copyright as types of property rights. So they sort of assumed this is part of the property-rights panoply we should respect. It's in the American Constitution … Tucker: I should tell you I've always assumed that too. Unquestioned, really. Kinsella: But, when you look at the history of it, the origins of copyright lie in censorship, literal censorship. Basically, they were afraid of the "menace of printing," because now the church and the government couldn't control so easily the distribution of what thoughts were, officially, to be promulgated to people. So the roots of copyright are in censorship, literally. The roots of patents — this is something I will mention in the speech at the Supporter's Summit. I was mentioning it to you the other day. Ironically, the origins of patents are in piracy, literally in piracy. Nowadays you hear the defenders of IP attack so-called pirates. Of course, as you and I have discussed, they are not pirates at all, because real pirates kill people and break things and take things from you and make you worse off. IP pirates don't do that. One of the original uses of what is called letters patent was a grant to Francis Drake. Drake became a privateer, which is nothing but a legalized pirate. He went around the world using these letters patent, granted to him by the Queen of England, to plunder and to steal and to bring the treasures back home. He was literally a pirate authorized by a patent. So patents and piracy do go hand in hand actually. [See The Real IP Pirates.] Tucker: Now a lot of this history is being unearthed, again, only recently because of the change in technology and the intensification of the law have caused people to now look more carefully at the foundations of something that was previously largely unquestioned. Although, Hayek has some passages in his work that were explicitly against copyright and patent. Of course Rothbard was against patent; he had a clear statement about his views on copyright. He was in favor of so-called common-law copyright, which is more or less a free-market position. And Mises provides enough good reason to question the whole idea that you could have ownership of ideas. I think it is pretty clear that he did not believe you could own ideas. So you have these strains in the Austrian tradition and, of course, it's not only the Austrian tradition that matters here. It's just that the Austrians have been the ones who have done the most serious thought about it, right? Kinsella: In thinking hard about this issue myself, I have noticed that having an Austrian background, as usual, helps to see these issues more clearly. It has helped me in legal theory and other areas, but here especially. You can see why Mises, even though he didn't devote a lot of attention to this issue, didn't go off track too far because his focus on the structure of human action kept him from doing that. He saw the role of ideas as a guide to human action. It was not the means of action. The means of action are scarce resources, which have to be economized, but Mises saw that human action is guided by ideas. So he glimpsed, although he didn't unfold it too much, he glimpsed that ideas — as you mentioned in your speech — that ideas cannot be destroyed. They can last forever. They're infinitely reusable. They're malleable, which also, I guess, Hayek would see as well with his emphasis on tacit knowledge. Tucker: Isn't it great, too, when Mises says ideas are not phantoms; they're real things? Kinsella: They are things. And I think the mistake made by sort of crude philosophizing by a lot of libertarians, is they'll say well, if it is a thing, then it can be owned. "Thingness" is not the criteria for ownability. There is something else, which is scarcity or something like that. It's not to denigrate their importance. And a lot of utilitarian-minded people just assume that if you're skeptical about intellectual property then you are anti-intellectual or you are hostile to the role of ideas. Of course, it is the other way around. Intellectual property hampers innovation. Intellectual property literally imposes censorship on people. It literally prevents you from using knowledge that you have. So, basically, getting rid of IP, one of the goals there is to enhance innovation and to enhance intellectual freedom. Tucker: Make every industry work the way the fashion industry has managed to live and thrive without IP. Kinsella: Absolutely. We're used to that now,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 332. I appeared yesterday (Friday, April 23, 2021) on the World Crypto Network (Youtube channel) panel The Bitcoin Group #255, hosted by Thomas Hunt. The other panelists included the CryptoRaptor (Dan Eve; see video below); Ben Arc; and Josh Scigala of Vaultoro. We discussed a variety of topics, including— Bitcoin Price Decline Deepens, Heads for Worst Week Since February Morgan Stanley Clients Hold Nearly $30M In Bitcoin Funds JPMorgan Sounds Urgent Alarm On Bitcoin Price ‘Momentum’ After $300 Billion Bitcoin And Crypto Sell-Off UK Court Agrees to Hear Copyright Lawsuit Brought by Self-Proclaimed Bitcoin Inventor Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk agree on bitcoin's green credentials Other related links: the Open Crypto Alliance, for which I serve on the Advisory Board Vijay Boyapati's upcoming book, based on his now-classic article "The Bullish Case for Bitcoin" (see this talk) My previous appearance at KOL323 | World Crypto Network: Announcing the Open Crypto Alliance to Protect Bitcoin, Blockchain and Crypto

Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and libertarian writer focused on IP, Austrian economics, and Bitcoin. He recounts his path into patent law and anti‑IP views. Conversations cover patent practice and strategy, Bitcoin’s role in spreading Austrian ideas, debates about money and Hayek vs Mises, and practical Bitcoin teaching tips.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 330. Lift Talks #2 — With Kinsella & Sammeroff. Grok summary shownotes: In this episode of Lift Talks [0:00–26:36], Stephan Kinsella and Anthony Sammeroff recount their Telluride skiing trip with humor and libertarian flair. They start by discussing a catered dinner party [1:02–2:23], where mask mandates were dismissed, and vaccine reactions sparked debate, reflecting their data-driven skepticism. Their conversation shifts to political labels [4:09–5:03], criticizing "liberals" and "progressives" while noting a natural affinity with conservatives over Democrats. They recap their journey from Houston to Auburn, Alabama [6:23–9:43], meeting libertarian figures like Jeff Barr and Roderick Long, and share gossip about factionalism in libertarian circles [10:00–12:45]. On the slopes, they enjoy fast runs like the Enchanted Forest [25:38–26:36], blending personal anecdotes with critiques of cultural norms. From [26:57–1:03:59], the duo dives deeper into libertarian philosophy and personal stories. Anthony shares a slope mishap where he jokingly insulted a stranger, mistaking him for Stephan [39:12–40:27], and they laugh over a gondola line encounter with a woman claiming cancer [47:24–49:53]. They reflect on intellectual curiosity [41:04–43:55], with Anthony linking his reasoning to a challenging upbringing, and Stephan joking about being "bitten by a radioactive Rothbard." They decide against extending their stay after Anthony’s skiing wrecks [51:21–58:39], opting for a final meal at West End Bistro [56:16–1:00:29], where they discuss truffle fries and libertarian ethics. The episode closes with a playful coffee shop exchange about Robert Redford [1:00:40–1:02:53], wrapping up with a montage of their top skiing speeds and a farewell from Stephan’s porch [1:03:01–1:03:59], leaving listeners with a mix of humor, philosophy, and adventure. Grok detailed shownotes and Transcript below. Update: mentioned in KOL462 | CouchStreams After Hours on Break the Cycle with Joshua Smith (2021). Two libertarian blokes on a ski vacation. Filmed Wednesday, March 31, 2021, Telluride Ski Resort. https://youtu.be/W-zKMncu4jo?si=dN9mgW-dkVbx-Btf Part 1: KOL329 | Lift Talks #1 With Kinsella & Sammeroff https://youtu.be/d1ZY0xm7coY?si=1rIL4Na8jnis4x_P Cross-posted on Scottish Liberty podcast. Bonus video: Three day skiing video compilation telluride March 2021 Grok detailed shownotes Bullet-Point Summary with Time Markers and Descriptions for 10–15 Minute Blocks Below is a bullet-point summary for use as show notes, organized into 10–15 minute blocks, each with a description and key points from the conversation, including time markers for significant moments. 0:00–14:46: Introduction and Trip Recap Description: The episode opens with Stephan and Anthony on a ski lift in Telluride, setting a casual, humorous tone. They share photos and stories from their trip, starting with a dinner party and moving into a recap of their travels from Houston to Auburn, Alabama, and then to Telluride. The conversation blends libertarian commentary with personal anecdotes, including mask mandate debates and libertarian gossip. Key Points: [0:00–0:24] Photos of the group in Telluride, including hot tub moments. [1:02–2:23] Discussion of a catered dinner party where mask mandates were dismissed, and vaccine reactions were debated, with a jab at "data deniers." [3:00–4:14] Anthony’s frustration at being late to ski, blaming Stephan’s leisurely pace. [4:09–5:03] Critique of political labels like "liberals" and "progressives," noting a closer affinity with conservatives. [6:23–8:58] Recap of their Auburn visit, meeting libertarian figures like Jeff Barr and Roderick Long, with Anthony excited about being recognized. [9:43–12:45] Libertarian gossip about Roderick Long’s alleged excommunication from the Mises Institute and Stephan’s cancellation by Cato, with humorous asides about factionalism. [13:15–14:46] Light-hearted banter about Anthony’s wife and their decision to ski in Telluride, with Anthony surprising Stephan by knowing how to ski. 14:46–29:04: Skiing Adventures and Cultural Reflections Description: The conversation shifts to their skiing experiences, with Stephan and Anthony enjoying the slopes and reflecting on cultural differences. They discuss a dinner party’s etiquette, libertarian philosophy, and Anthony’s decision to extend the trip. The segment is filled with humor, including jabs at each other’s personalities and social media antics. Key Points: [15:21–16:56] Discussion of the episode’s potential popularity, with Anthony arguing that casual chats humanize them compared to dense libertarian theory. [17:46–20:55] Travel logistics, including a stressful airport experience and cultural differences at a hotel breakfast, with Anthony snapping at a waiter. [22:14–24:34] Arrival in Telluride, with a visit to clothing-optional hot springs and a sweat lodge, followed by a vegetarian dinner with etiquette disputes. [25:38–26:36] Video clip of glade skiing in the Enchanted Forest, with no wrecks reported. [27:03–28:56] Plans to ski black diamond runs, with Stephan deciding to stay an extra day, prompting Anthony to jokingly complain about costs but agree to stay. 29:04–43:55: Libertarian Philosophy and Slope Mishaps Description: This segment dives into deeper libertarian reflections, with Anthony sharing a humorous skiing mishap where he mistook a stranger for Stephan. They discuss intellectual curiosity, linking it to personal struggles, and continue their playful banter about social norms and libertarian events. Key Points: [31:00–32:58] Discussion of dinner party etiquette, with Anthony charming a guest and reflecting on aristocratic norms. [33:01–34:14] Cultural observations about Jewish identity, with Anthony noting European awareness versus American indifference. [34:32–36:06] Anthony’s financial struggles post-trip, with a plug for his podcast and book, followed by banter about his music and philosophy degree. [39:12–40:46] Anthony’s slope mishap, where he jokingly insulted a stranger thinking it was Stephan, leading to laughter and an apology. [41:04–43:55] Reflection on intellectual curiosity, with Anthony attributing his reasoning to a challenging upbringing and Stephan joking about being “bitten by a radioactive Rothbard.” 43:55–58:39: Gondola Line Drama and Skiing Reflections Description: The conversation covers a tense gondola line encounter with a woman claiming cancer, sparking libertarian critiques of mask culture. They reflect on their skiing, with Anthony’s wrecks prompting a decision to end the trip early. The segment ends with a final meal at West End Bistro, blending humor with philosophical musings. Key Points: [44:27–45:21] Teasing about Peggy’s “dark side” Telluride house, a humorous take on first-world problems. [47:24–49:53] Gondola line incident where a woman demands space due to cancer, leading to Anthony’s skepticism and libertarian rants about mask mandates. [51:21–52:36] Anthony’s skiing wrecks, including a bad tumble on a black diamond run, prompting a decision not to extend the trip. [56:16–58:39] Final meal at West End Bistro, discussing veggie options and truffle fries, with a libertarian take on artificial flavors and fraud. 58:39–1:03:59: Wrap-Up and Farewell Description: The episode concludes with the duo at a coffee shop, joking about a Robert Redford sighting and cultural norms. They reflect on their trip, share a montage of skiing highlights, and sign off with a farewell from Stephan’s porch, hinting at future collaborations if the episode is well-received. Key Points: [59:04–1:00:29] Banter about a lukewarm hot tub, blamed humorously on Anthony, and enjoyment of West End Bistro’s ambiance. [1:00:40–1:02:53] Coffee shop exchange where Stephan pranks Anthony about Robert Redford, leading to jokes about celebrity encounters and Sundance. [1:03:01–1:03:59] Final montage showing their top skiing speed (51.2 mph) and a farewell from Stephan’s porch, with Anthony at his Houston Airbnb, expressing hope for future Lift Talks. These summaries capture the essence of the conversation, balancing humor, libertarian philosophy, and personal anecdotes, while adhering to the requested formats. Let me know if you need further refinements or additional details! Transcript 0:00 all right here's lift talk number two starting off with a few photos this is anthony and peggy 0:05 anthony and peggy and david at the bar across the street this is us in the hot tub 0:12 after one of our days skiing anthony like a greek god in the hot tub 0:17 and don't look at his junk me in the hot tub um and here we go 0:24 all right it's wednesday our last ski day that's right someone woke up at noon jesus i wonder who that could have been 0:31 yeah yeah anyway so we're going skiing late for some reason why don't you tell them all what 0:37 happened no let's just let them wonder um so what the funny thing is right this 0:42 guy's like uh he's like i don't know what happened this morning and i'm like i know and his friends are like what what what 0:50 and it's like you were a lazy [ __ ] so we had we had a nice dinner party 0:55 last night which was incredible yeah we had a chef come in can you put the pictures over the video yeah i can do that so um you know what 1:02 we should do let's oh so i put it on twitter i said you know we had a dinner party catered 1:08 to telluride for eight people three people were cooking and they asked us if they wanted 1:13

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 329. Lift Talks #1 —Telluride March 2021 — With Kinsella & Sammeroff. Two libertarian blokes on a ski vacation. Filmed Tuesday March 30, 2021, Telluride Ski Resort. Grok summary shownotes: In the "Lift Talks" episode recorded in Telluride, Colorado, Stephan Kinsella and Anthony Sammeroff deliver a dynamic conversation while riding ski lifts, starting with humorous reflections on their trip [0:00-9:00]. They discuss their skiing adventures, hot springs visits, and encounters with COVID-19 mask policies, including a tense plane incident involving a dropped tissue and a stewardess enforcing federal mask laws [3:46-5:57]. Their libertarian perspective shines through as they mock passive-aggressive mask enforcers and recount a refreshing interaction with a store clerk who opposed mask mandates [6:09-7:06]. The hosts also share personal stories, like Sammeroff’s flirtatious banter about a vegan woman and a chance meeting with a friend from a yoga retreat, highlighting cultural differences between American and European directness [7:12-8:27]. The conversation deepens as they explore libertarian philosophy and critique political ideologies [21:11-36:29]. They debate the right’s realism versus the left’s egalitarianism, asserting that libertarians provide intellectual foundations often stolen by conservatives [21:17-22:28]. A discussion with guest Peggy around [44:02-48:46] reveals her partial alignment with libertarianism but concerns about policing without government, prompting Kinsella and Sammeroff to advocate for privatized security and critique public sector failures, like a case where police neglected rape victims [47:36-48:25]. The episode concludes with reflections on their friendship, Sammeroff’s newfound opportunities in America, and plans for future episodes, all infused with humor and philosophical insights [50:01-54:45]. Grok detailed shownotes and Transcript below. [Update: Tom Woods and Antony discuss his travels across American in Ep. 1895 Traveling Through COVID America. Also mentioned in KOL462 | CouchStreams After Hours on Break the Cycle with Joshua Smith (2021).] https://youtu.be/d1ZY0xm7coY?si=PJCg8cJDL3yxYjSl Part 2: KOL330 | Lift Talks #2 With Kinsella & Sammeroff https://youtu.be/W-zKMncu4jo?si=u_4smoT1fG-IchTC Cross-posted on Scottish Liberty podcast. Bonus video: Three day skiing video compilation telluride March 2021 Grok detailed shownotes Bullet-Point Summary with Time Markers and Descriptions for 10-15 Minute Blocks 0:00-10:00: Introduction and Ski Trip Anecdotes Description: The episode opens with Stephan Kinsella and Anthony Sammeroff introducing their "Lift Talks" concept while riding a gondola in Telluride, Colorado. They share photos from their trip, including hot springs visits and skiing with hosts Peggy and David. The conversation is lighthearted, focusing on their skiing experiences and humorous takes on mask enforcement. Summary: The hosts discuss their first two days skiing, including a visit to Orvis Hot Springs and a funny incident where Sammeroff struggled with the COVID-19 vaccine’s effects [2:00-2:12]. They recount a plane incident where a couple and stewardess chided Sammeroff for not wearing his mask properly [3:46-5:04], reflecting their libertarian disdain for mandates. They also mention meeting a store clerk who opposed masks, revealing a shared skepticism [6:09-7:06]. 10:01-20:00: Libertarian Banter and Cultural Observations Description: The hosts continue their lift ride, joking about their skiing skills, privilege, and cultural differences between Americans and Europeans. They touch on libertarian figures like Jeffrey Tucker and share stories from hot springs, including an encounter with a Native American man spouting spiritual beliefs. Summary: Sammeroff and Kinsella playfully debate their skiing prowess and privilege [10:00-10:26], with Sammeroff joking about needing a “privilege diet.” They critique American passive-aggressiveness compared to European directness [5:22-5:57] and recount a hot springs visit where a Native American man preached about rock and water [16:56-17:26]. The conversation briefly turns philosophical, questioning objective reality, but they pivot back to humor [18:19-18:30]. 20:01-30:00: Political Philosophy and Right vs. Left Critique Description: The discussion shifts to political theory, with the hosts critiquing the right’s realism and the left’s egalitarianism. They argue that libertarians provide intellectual foundations for conservatives, who often dismiss them. They also share stories from their travels, including an Uber driver’s shift toward free-market ideas. Summary: Kinsella and Sammeroff challenge Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s view that the right is more realistic, arguing that conservatives co-opt libertarian ideas without gratitude [21:17-22:28]. They discuss an Uber driver in Auburn who moved from Democratic to free-market sympathies after researching Trump [39:26-40:10]. The hosts also mention Oprah’s bridge in Telluride, mocking its extravagance [20:51-21:03]. 30:01-40:00: Libertarian Theory and Legal Philosophy Description: The conversation deepens into the distinctions between political philosophy, political theory, and legal theory. They explore libertarianism as a normative framework for law and economics, contrasting it with Marxist or conservative approaches. The hosts also plan a catered dinner and discuss mask preferences with the chef. Summary: Kinsella explains libertarianism as a normative political philosophy that argues for what law should be, distinguishing it from descriptive legal theory [33:04-36:29]. They critique political economy’s historical focus on state-run economies versus modern economics’ broader scope [37:31-38:01]. The hosts mention a chef asking about mask preferences, planning to gauge public sentiment on mandates [27:36-28:03]. 40:01-50:00: Guest Appearance and Libertarian Solutions Description: Guest Peggy joins the lift talk, expressing cautious support for libertarianism but raising concerns about policing without government. The hosts advocate for privatized security and critique public police failures. They also share lighthearted moments, like joking about a feminist T-shirt. Summary: Peggy agrees with less government but questions how to handle crime without police [44:02-45:12]. Kinsella and Sammeroff argue that private security would be more accountable, citing a case where police failed rape victims due to no legal obligation to protect [47:36-48:25]. They joke about a T-shirt reading “She Wants the Destruction of Patriarchy” [42:28-42:40]. 50:01-55:23: Reflections and Closing Description: The episode wraps up with reflections on their friendship, Sammeroff’s opportunities in America, and plans for future episodes. They share clips of skiing and dinner party photos, maintaining a humorous and optimistic tone. Summary: Sammeroff credits Kinsella for his newfound opportunities, including speaking engagements and book deals, contrasting this with his past in Scotland [51:41-53:50]. They joke about Kinsella’s past drinking and his book “Against Intellectual Property” [50:43-51:15]. The episode ends with a call for feedback on “Lift Talks” and photos from a beef Wellington dinner [54:39-55:16]. This summary captures the episode’s blend of humor, personal anecdotes, and libertarian philosophy, segmented into digestible blocks for show notes. Transcript 0:00 all right this is stefan kinsella and anthony summeroff will be joining me these are some 0:05 photographs of our trip to telluride our first day or two before we get to 0:11 this is the hot springs the orvis hot springs and ridgeway that we went to and this is uh 0:17 me and anthony on the left and me and anthony and david 0:22 and peggy are gracious hosts a few pictures taken on top of the 0:27 mountain me and anthony and then this is uh peggy and david and anthony 0:33 and here's me afraid to go down a hyper mowgli black which i did not go down and here 0:39 we go this is uh the beginning of lift talks 0:45 with anthony summeroff and stephen gonzalo how are you doing there i think 0:50 excellent you're looking forward to having a good lift talk on the left oh sure this has been like one of the best holidays 0:56 ever and we're only on the second freaking day i know i know right i know right okay we'll see 1:02 you on the left okay so this is we're about to get on the gondola head up 1:08 about to get on the gondola they ask you to put this over your mouth and nose which is what [ __ ] 1:29 [Music] 1:36 nicely done that was just a majestic as a gazelle 1:46 all right how elegantly i can compensate for my errors in life ah peace and quiet okay this is tuesday 1:54 we skied yesterday and we're on our second day starting off late starting off late because someone 2:00 couldn't get out of bed someone's recovering from the covet vaccine number two which all my libertarian friends warned me about 2:06 taking but i just didn't listen yeah you should have injected that poison into your 2:12 bloodstream yeah and feeling the effects so this whole trip has turned into a kobe trip because all 2:18 you do is complain about covet and get us in trouble and almost get kicked off of dead airplanes yeah so i 2:24 guess we should introduce you into some of the characters that we've met do you want to sit here so that we 2:29 can both be in the frame and tell the story i'll sit by you sweetie yeah you'll get some nice views 2:34 this is such a great idea i love this show the samurai can sell the show so 2:41

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 328. This is my appearance on Heterodorx Episode 10: I.P. Everywhere!, hosted by Nina Paley and Corinna Cohn (posted March 29, 2021; recorded March 25, 2021). Nina is also on the C4SIF Advisory Board. From the shownotes (see also Nina's Facebook post): Get ready for some hardcore Libertarian nerd-talk, as Corinna goes head-to-head with Stephan Kinsella, author of Against Intellectual Property, and Libertarianism’s foremost critic of copyright and patents.  Thrill to dazzling theories of labor vs. action, restrictive covenants, negative easements, burdened estates, nuisances, limitations, consent, redistribution of rights, triangular intervention, property, scarcity, value, allocation of contestable resources, conflict, trade secrets, the Patent Bargain, disclosure, distortion, abolishing the FDA…wait, what? By the end of the episode, Corinna suffers a long-overdue crisis of faith. SUCCESS! Related links: Stephan Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property C4SIF.org Resources http://c4sif.org/resources/ Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes Karl Fogel:The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World and https://youtu.be/mhBpI13dxkI Boldrin & Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly “Conversation with an author about copyright and publishing in a free society” (Harry Potter example) “Intellectual Property” as an umbrella term and as propaganda: a reply to Richard Stallman  A Selection of Kinsella’s Best Articles and Speeches on IP

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 327. I was asked some questions about intellectual property, and how you can sell something (like information, or ideas, or even your labor) if you don't own it, by Shea Fisker, a budding libertarian and fellow libertarian. He had just the right attitude. He listened and thought, and asked reasonable questions when he had an issue that puzzled him. Would that so many cocksure pro-IP libertarians, who really know almost nothing about IP law itself and the fundamentals of libertarian property theory, or even how to argue or discuss issues without being tendentious, equivocating, or question-begging. Youtube below: Here is the interchange which led to this discussion (lightly edited), along with related links: Shea: Hi Stephan, I’m interested in your work on IP. If someone is creating digital products, do you think it’s OK to sell them, even though they are neither non-rivalrous nor non-excludable, simply with IP removed from the picture? For example, I noticed most of your books are in physical form, embodying legit private property, but one of your books is available in Kindle and isn’t for free. Is the thought simply that selling such an informational, non-physical product is purely a voluntary, contractual exchange, and that it is only the stopping of people from freely sharing that good with others after that purchase (IP) that is wrong? There’s seemingly something tricky about even the selling of the thing, say a piece of software, when the creator could hardly be considered the owner of it in the first place. But, perhaps I am confusing something here, because to say someone couldn’t even sell a digital/informational product that they created, IP aside, seems akin to some sort of enforced communism. I hope that makes sense. I’d love to hear your thoughts. BTW, I’m from New Iberia and went to LSU in BR. In one way, it is analogous to say, charging someone for consulting, which is simply the exchange of words, which one can’t be said to own. And to say one couldn’t legitimately (according to libertarian principles) sell a digital product at scale, would be equivalent to saying one must be forced to do all consulting publicly for the whole world to consume anytime that one tries to privately exchange a one-to-one service that isn’t physical. So I think I aiming to clarify two things here and am somehow wrongly mixing them up: 1) the physical vs. non-physical; and 2) IP vs. selling. I am still not sure where the concept of ownership fits in here, but if we grant that selling of anything that doesn’t violate other peoples’ property is fine, then it shouldn’t matter whether the thing is scarce or not as to whether one can sell it for money. In other words, I could charge you $1000 for me to tell you “Hello” one time, if you consent to that exchange. *** Not to overload you here straight out the gate, but in one of your PorcFest talks I just heard you say “Creation is not a source of property, it’s a source of wealth.” I think this point may be key in the issues I’m bringing up above. Kinsella: It would take me a bit to write up an answer. Tell you what, I'll be happy to explain it to you, but on a zoom call so I can record it and put it on my podcast, so others can hear the explanation.... In the meantime read this: The “If you own something, that implies that you can sell it; if you sell something, that implies you must own it first” Fallacies Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value Locke on IP; Mises, Rothbard, and Rand on Creation, Production, and ‘Rearranging’  see p. 29 et pass of Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society “Intellectual Freedom and Learning Versus Patent and Copyright,” esp. the section "Creation of Wealth versus Creation of Property" and KOL062 | “Intellectual Freedom and Learning versus Patent and Copyright” (2010)