Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 457. I had been meaning to talk to my old friend Sheldon Richman, of the Libertarian Institute and TGIF column, about his own IP Odyssey, as he's always been great on this issue, (( My IP Odyssey; as quoted in “Your failed business model is not my problem”; Sheldon Richman, “Patent Nonsense," IP Debate Breaks Out at FEE. Others, e.g. Richman, The Articles of Confederation Versus the Constitution. )) and many others. At the same time I had been talking to André Simoni of Brazil about some questions he had about applying my/Rothbard's title-transfer contract theory to some questions he had about interest payments on student loans and other contracts, usury, and so on. I had thought of talking to André and Sheldon separately but decided to combine them, partly because I confused André's topic with a discussion I had also been having at the same time with Galambosian Brian Gladish about IP and Galambos. (( On Galambos, see the following. On Gladish, see the next note. Galambos and Other Nuts; The Galambosians strike back; “Around this time I met the Galambosian.”; Was Galambos an IP Thief?; Galambos the Crank; Shades of Galambos: Man tries to copyright his name; Rothbard and Galambosians. )) Libertopia, San Diego, Oct. 11, 2012: Anthony Gregory, Kinsella, Roderick Long, Sheldon Richman. See KOL238 | Libertopia 2012 IP Panel with Charles Johnson and Butler Shaffer; KOL237 | Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP—Part 2 (Libertopia 2012); KOL236 | Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Libertopia 2012) Sheldon and I talked first about IP and other topics, and then to André about contract theory, which Sheldon jumped in on anyway. (I may talk to Gladish later about Galambos and IP.) (( Gladish on Galambos at ASC; his comments at: Have You Changed Your Mind About Intellectual Property?; Galambos and Other Nuts; Mises on Intellectual Property; Why Objectivists Hate Anarchy (Hint: IP). )) We touched on a number of topics; see the summary of our discussion points by Grok: [00:00:02 - 00:20:44] Stephan Kinsella hosts Sheldon Richman, executive editor of the Libertarian Institute, to discuss Richman’s libertarian journey and his opposition to intellectual property (IP). Richman traces his ideological roots to the 1964 Goldwater campaign, Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard, emphasizing his rejection of IP as incompatible with liberty due to its monopolistic nature. He critiques the notion that creation alone justifies ownership, advocating for property rights based on prior ownership of tangible inputs. The conversation highlights Richman’s classical liberal stance, his defense of corporations as efficient market entities, and his nuanced view on libertarian labels, favoring a broad, non-tribal approach to radical liberalism. [00:20:45 - 01:33:05] The discussion shifts to Andre from Brazil, who joins to explore the title-transfer theory of contract, focusing on its application to student loans, interest payments, usury, and bankruptcy. Kinsella explains that contracts involve title transfers, not enforceable promises, and addresses Andre’s concerns about vague contract terms and usury laws, arguing they often protect entrenched interests. On bankruptcy, Kinsella notes his evolving view, influenced by inalienability concepts, suggesting that extreme debt obligations resembling slavery might justify limited bankruptcy protections in a free society, as discussed in his recent blog post. Richman contributes insights on contracts, reinforcing the need for clear title transfers, while the trio debates the moral and legal implications of debt and societal expectations in libertarian frameworks. Transcript and detailed Grok shownotes below. https://youtu.be/7vrIz8cv2Bw Of relevance: Stephan Kinsella, “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract,” Papinian Press Working Paper #1 (Sep. 7, 2024) Napolitano on Health-Care Reform and the Constitution: Is the Commerce Clause Really Limited?  and On Constitutional Sentimentalism (re Richman's point about the interstate commerce clause); see also his comments about federal tax power in Randy Barnett’s “Federalism Amendment”–A Counterproposal; and related posts The Walmart Question, or, the Unsupported Assertions of Left-Libertarianism Ep. 382 Sheldon Richman Says Corporate Isn’t a Dirty Word, Bob Murphy Show Four questions for “anti-capitalist” libertarians (Carpio)/Is Capitalism Something Good? (Richman) (2010) Left-Libertarians Admit Opposition to “Capitalism” is Substantive Capitalism, Socialism, and Libertarianism Should Libertarians Oppose “Capitalism”? Richman: Leave the “Left” Behind? Doug French, Walk Away: The Rise and Fall of the Home-Ownership Myth On libertarians who support voluntary slavery contracts: Block, Nozick, Casey: “A Tour Through Walter Block’s Oeuvre”; KOL442 | Together Strong Debate vs. Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery (Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity) Detailed Segment Summary [00:00:02 - 00:09:14] Introduction and Richman’s Libertarian Background Kinsella introduces the podcast, noting his intent to discuss IP with Richman and contract theory with Andre. Richman, executive editor of the Libertarian Institute, shares his “TGIF” column history and his libertarian evolution from the 1964 Goldwater campaign to influences like Rand and Rothbard. He rejects the “left-libertarian” label, favoring classical liberalism, and defends corporations as efficient, per Robert Hessen’s work, against anti-capitalist critiques. [00:09:15 - 00:20:44] Intellectual Property and Liberty Richman opposes IP, arguing it creates state-enforced monopolies incompatible with liberty, citing Jefferson’s view that ideas are non-scarce and not ownable. He challenges the idea that creation justifies ownership, asserting that property rights stem from prior ownership of tangible inputs, not the act of invention. Kinsella and Richman discuss the growing libertarian skepticism toward IP, noting support from institutions like the Mises Institute and Mercatus Center. [00:20:45 - 00:36:27] Transition to Contract Theory with Andre Andre joins to discuss the title-transfer theory, asking about its application to student loans and interest payments. Kinsella explains that contracts are about transferring property titles, not enforcing promises, and clarifies that vague terms don’t inherently invalidate contracts if intent is clear. Richman emphasizes that libertarian contracts require explicit title transfers, distinguishing them from traditional legal expectations. [00:36:28 - 00:52:16] Interest, Usury, and Contractual Obligations Andre raises concerns about usury laws and high interest rates, particularly in Brazil’s regulated banking system. Kinsella argues that usury laws often protect banks, not borrowers, and that interest rates should be market-driven, reflecting risk and time preference. The discussion touches on fractional reserve banking, with Kinsella noting its complexity but defending voluntary contracts, even with high interest, as long as titles are clear. [00:52:17 - 01:08:22] Bankruptcy and Inalienability Andre asks about bankruptcy, prompting Kinsella to share his evolving view, influenced by inalienability, that extreme debt obligations could equate to slavery, justifying limited bankruptcy protections. Kinsella references his blog post, noting comments from readers like “LibertarianThinker” and “FreeMarketAdvocate” that highlight tensions between debt obligations and personal autonomy, reinforcing his stance that inalienability might limit enforceable title transfers. Richman agrees that contracts must respect individual autonomy, cautioning against terms that effectively enslave debtors. [01:08:23 - 01:33:05] Societal Norms and Future Directions The trio discusses how societal expectations shape contract enforcement, with Andre noting Brazil’s cultural reliance on legal recourse. Kinsella suggests that a free society would rely on reputation and market mechanisms, not state coercion, to enforce contracts. They conclude with reflections on the title-transfer theory’s underexplored potential, with Kinsella encouraging Andre to contribute to its development, and Richman advocating for broader libertarian discourse on these issues. Concise Grok summary using the transcript (below): Here’s a concise summary of the "Interview by Stephan Kinsella of Sheldon Richman and Andre from Brazil" in about 7 bullet points with time markers: 0:02 - 2:11: Stephan Kinsella introduces the podcast ("Kinsella on Liberty 457") to catch up with Sheldon Richman, executive editor of the Libertarian Institute, about his libertarian history and IP views. Sheldon writes "TGIF" weekly, rooted in his Freeman editorship (late 1990s-~2012-13). 2:19 - 9:14: Sheldon, officially retired but freelancing, rejects "left-libertarian" as a tribal label (early 2000s usage), favoring classical liberalism. He defends corporations (Corporate Is Not a Four-Letter Word) against anti-capitalist critiques, citing efficiency (per Robert Hessen). 9:52 - 20:44: Sheldon traces his libertarianism to Goldwater (1964) and college (1967-68), via Rand, Rothbard, and Mises. Stephan notes early movement’s pro-IP stance (Rand-influenced), shifting with Palmer (1989) and others. Sheldon recalls no anti-IP views until Palmer and Fred Smith. 20:50 - 36:01: Andre from Brazil joins, a libertarian since 2011-12, popularizing Hoppean ethics. Stephan and Sheldon debate IP: Stephan likens defamation to IP (reputation rights), opposing it; Sheldon questions malicious lies’ harm but leans anti-IP (Rothbard-influenced).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 456. [Update: see various biographical pieces on my publications page, including Alan D. Bergman, Adopting Liberty: The Stephan Kinsella Story (2025).] This is my appearance on Adam Haman’s podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack), episode HN 109, "Stephan Kinsella Expounds on Philosophy And The Life Well Lived" (recorded Feb. 6, 2025—just before the Tom Woods cruise). We discussed philosophy and rights; my legal and libertarian careers (see Adopting Liberty: The Stephan Kinsella Story), and so on. Grok transcript and shownotes below. Adam's Shownotes: Adam interviews patent attorney, philosopher, legal theorist and libertarian anarchist Stephan Kinsella about his life, his works, and what's next for the great man! 00:00 – Intro. 01:21 -- Does Stephan believe there is a level of technology required for "Ancapistan" to "work". 07:42 -- Adam has issues with the "is/ought" gap and asks Stephan for help on the matter. 25:42 -- The life and times of Stephan Kinsella. Great stuff! 50:55 -- Have questions about legal careers? Reach out to Stephan with questions! 52:02 -- Outro. Thank you for watching Haman Nature! https://youtu.be/ls82IXaxIW8?si=0RXbDIdp5FsiR3IW Shownotes (Grok):   body { font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; max-width: 800px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; } h1, h2 { color: #2c3e50; } .timestamp { font-weight: bold; color: #7f8c8d; display: block; margin-bottom: 5px; } p { margin-bottom: 15px; }   Haman Nature Episode 109: Revised Show Notes Aired: March 24, 2025 In this episode of Haman Nature, host Adam Haman interviews libertarian theorist and patent attorney Stephan Kinsella, marking his third or fourth appearance on the show. The discussion explores Kinsella’s views on anarcho-capitalism, libertarian legal theory, philosophy, and intellectual property (IP), intertwined with biographical insights into his life, career challenges, and intellectual evolution. The episode offers a blend of deep philosophical inquiry and personal reflection, highlighting Kinsella’s contributions to libertarian thought. Technology and Anarcho-Capitalism [00:00] The episode begins with a discussion on whether advanced technology is required for an anarcho-capitalist society (“Ancapistan”) to succeed. Kinsella clarifies a misinterpreted comment, stating he no longer sees liberty as dependent on mass economic literacy but on cultural absorption of libertarian values, as seen after the Soviet Union’s fall. He envisions technology reducing theft incentives in a post-scarcity world, where resources are easily replicable, making state coercion ineffective. Breakthroughs like AI or Bitcoin could accelerate this, though a free society remains possible without them, emphasizing productivity and voluntary institutions. The “Is/Ought” Gap and Objective Rights [07:45] Haman raises the “is/ought” gap, referencing Kinsella’s prior podcast on objective versus subjective rights. Kinsella argues norms must be universalizable and grounded in reality, rejecting arbitrary distinctions like race or strength. Drawing on Hoppe’s transcendental argument, he explains that peaceful discourse presupposes equality and peace, forming a foundation for libertarian norms like body ownership and homesteading. These objective rights minimize conflict and enable prosperity, rooted in human nature rather than divine or forceful edicts. Religion, Ethics, and Practical Norms [14:00] The talk extends to religion’s role in ethics, with Kinsella critiquing dismissals of natural rights while noting that ethical “oughts” often derive from some “is,” including God. He aligns with Peterson’s view of God as a hierarchy of values for human thriving through iterative processes, similar to libertarian principles fleshed out via common law precedents. As an atheist, Kinsella values religion for encoding practical morals but prefers it over statism, which perverts decency. He stresses that norms evolve pragmatically to foster peace, rejecting utilitarianism for principled consistency. Kinsella’s Personal Challenges and Early Influences [25:46] Kinsella shares his life story, reflecting on a tough year with prostate cancer recurrence, sepsis leading to a stroke and kidney issues, his brother’s death, and surgery recovery. Now 59 and recovered, he’s prioritizing family, health, and writing, pausing libertarian travels. Growing up in rural Louisiana, he attended Catholic schools and discovered libertarianism through Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead in 10th grade, becoming an objectivist and atheist. Early bullying experiences amplified his hatred of injustice, aligning with Rand’s anti-force ethos, while comics and philosophy shaped his worldview. He pursued electrical engineering at LSU but found it limiting, leading to law school. Law School Education and Legal Theory Benefits [33:42] At Louisiana State University (LSU), a top civil law school due to Louisiana’s unique civil law system, Kinsella studied Roman and civil law alongside common law, providing a rare comparative framework. This education deepened his understanding of legal systems, which he now sees as serendipitously beneficial to his libertarian work. It enhanced his analyses of contract theory, property rights, and intellectual property, allowing him to draw on historical precedents like Roman law. Without this foundation, Kinsella believes his writing and theorizing would have been significantly less robust, as it fostered a systematic approach integrating legal history with Austrian economics and political philosophy. Career Beginnings, Law Firm Deferment, and London Experience [36:10] After law school, Kinsella secured a job at a Houston oil and gas law firm in 1991, coinciding with his wife’s engineering move there. However, a legal recession—possibly tied to economic downturns or oil industry fluctuations—left firms short on work, leading some to rescind offers. His firm instead proposed deferring 10-15 incoming associates for a year, paying partial salary (one-third to half). Kinsella eagerly accepted, viewing it as an opportunity. He used the funds to spend a year in London pursuing a master’s in international business law, which he describes as a great experience that he loved. This international exposure broadened his legal perspective, aiding his later writings on global business, contract theory, and anarchy, making his career more intellectually fulfilling. Shift to Patent Law, IP Opposition, and Future Plans [38:00] Kinsella switched to patent law for national mobility, initially supporting IP due to Rand but concluding by 1994 it should be abolished, as it contradicted property rights. His vocal opposition never harmed his 30-year career—spanning law firms, general counsel roles, and private practice—instead positioning him as an expert. Now retired, he focuses on writing, including Copy This Book, to critique how IP stifles innovation like AI. He invites legal career questions via stephankinsella.com or @NSKinsella on social media. Haman wraps up by encouraging support at hamannature.substack.com. Note: The transcript does not mention any accident in 1983 while working construction, so no elaboration is provided here.   TRANSCRIPT (From youtube; cleaned up by Grok). body { font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; max-width: 800px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; } h1, h2 { color: #2c3e50; } .timestamp { font-weight: bold; color: #7f8c8d; } .speaker { font-weight: bold; color: #e74c3c; } .section { margin-top: 20px; border-left: 3px solid #3498db; padding-left: 10px; } Haman Nature Episode 109: Interview with Stephan Kinsella Adam Haman interviews patent attorney, philosopher, legal theorist, and libertarian anarchist Stephan Kinsella about his life, works, and thoughts on anarcho-capitalism, legal theory, and more. Originally aired: March 24, 2025 Intro [00:00] Adam Haman: Hello and welcome to Haman Nature. I’m Adam Haman, and on today’s show, I have an interview with the great libertarian theorist and patent attorney, Stephan Kinsella. I believe this is his third or fourth appearance on the show. I asked him some probing questions about anarcho-capitalism, libertarian legal theory, and philosophy. In the back half, I talk to him about his life, which is very, very interesting. So, please enjoy Haman Nature, a journey in search of a peaceful and prosperous society with human nature as a guide, led by your host, Adam Haman. [01:00] Adam Haman: Hello, Stephan, welcome back to Haman Nature. Stephan Kinsella: Hey, Adam, it’s great to see you again. Adam Haman: Today, I’d like to ask you a couple of questions about philosophy and anarchy, and then I want to hear the story of Stephan Kinsella, if you’d indulge us. Stephan Kinsella: Sure, okay. Does Stephan believe there is a level of technology required for "Ancapistan" to "work"? [01:23] Adam Haman: My partner on this show, Tyrone the Porcupine Hobo, mentioned something surprising from a conversation about you. He said he learned from you—either from something you wrote or said on a podcast—that our species won’t achieve anything close to “Ancapistan” unless we reach a high enough level of technology that we haven’t yet attained. Did he hear you correctly, or what are your thoughts on that? Stephan Kinsella: That’s not exactly what I think,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 455. I interviewed/had a discussion with my first IP law boss today, William C. (Bill) Norvell, Jr., about our time together when I was a new lawyer, his love of opera and so on, and his views on politics, war, Trump, and his views on the patent and IP system based on his years of experience as a patent prosecutor and patent ligitator. Bill, previously a parter with my former firm Jackson Walker, is now retired from Akerman. He was unable to connect via video on our Zoom call so his part is audio only. Update: Patent Lawyer and Mentor Opposes Property Rights in Ideas https://youtu.be/dfpn3KWnh2Q I've mentioned before there are very few anti-patent IP attorneys (see Pro-IP “Anarchists” and anti-IP Patent Attorneys; Patent Lawyers Who Oppose Patent Law). It turns out Bill, the guy who taught me patent law, is mostly of that sentiment. In response to my question about whether abolishing the patent system would mean the end of innovation and inventions, go to about 1:26:00, for this interchange: Kinsella: If the patent system disappeared tomorrow, do you think this this would mean that innovation would stop? Norvell: No, absolutely not. I think it's in the mind in the civilized man and woman mind to move forward and advance society, and we've done this since the caveman and the development of fire and the wheel and so forth. Absolutely not. I think the people that I have known and worked with in my career had brilliant minds;  they were creative people people, and they didn't they didn't really didn't give a damn about the patents. You know another point on this, and in direct answer to your question, is that patents are are applications a lot of times are approved to be pursued in corporations to be “warm fuzzies” for engineers and designers and so forth—"oh this man has three patents etc etc etc”—and there's there's not any care about about protectionism and going into the market and so forth. Mankind, in our entire society, the development of the Industrial Revolution, the evolution of that, is in the in the genes, so to speak, of humanity. I don't think it would affect it a bit. I am reminded of the words of an email to me from a patent attorney (Miracle–An Honest Patent Attorney!): Stephan, Your letter responding to Joe Hosteny’s comments on Patent Trolls nicely states what I came to realize several years ago, namely, it is unclear that the U.S. Patent System, as currently implemented, necessarily benefits society as a whole. Certainly, it has benefited [Hostey] and his [partners] and several of their prominent clients, and has put Marshall, Texas on the map; but you really have to wonder if the “tax” placed on industry by the System (and its use of juries or lay judges to make the call on often highly complex technical issues that the parties’ technical experts cannot agree on) is really worth it. Of course, anyone can point to a few start-up companies that, arguably, owe their successes to their patent portfolios; but over the last 35 years, I have observed what would appear to be an ever increasing number of meritless patents, issued by an understaffed and talent-challenged PTO examining group, being used to extract tribute from whole industries. I have had this discussion with a number of clients, including Asian clients, who have been forced to accept our Patent System and the “taxes” it imposes on them as the cost of doing business in the USA. I wish I had the “answer”. I don’t. But going to real opposition proceedings, special patent courts with trained patent judges, “loser pays attorney fees” trials, retired engineers/scientists or other experienced engineers/scientists being used to examine applications in their fields of expertise by telecommuting from their homes or local offices throughout the Country, litigating patent attorneys providing regular lectures to the PTO examiners on problems encountered in patent infringement cases due to ineffective or careless examination of patent applications, and the appointment of actually qualified patent judges to the CAFC, may be steps in the right direction. Related: For other information about my career, see other biographical material Are anti-IP patent attorneys hypocrites? (collecting various posts about this topic) "The Silent Bar," section in “Reducing the Cost of IP Law” (on how patent attorneys rarely question the patent system they are part of) and  (on why we should) sdfsd Proposals for reform: in “How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law”; also in “Reducing the Cost of IP Law” (also discussing a "petty patent" system as a possible improvement over the current approach; also discussed in Tabarrok’s Launching the Innovation Renaissance: Statism, not renaissance Kinsella, Do Business Without Intellectual Property (Liberty.me, 2014) On patent litigation forum shopping in Marhsall, Texas, the E.D. Tex.: Wikipedia; Grok “Copyright is Unconstitutional” On Chevron: Grok; Grok Libertarian Favors $80 Billion Annual Tax-Funded “Medical Innovation Prize Fund”

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 454. My recent appearance on The Rational Egoist. (Spotify; Youtube) Shownotes: Michael engages in a lively debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian theorist and anarcho-capitalist, as they explore key issues that divide Objectivists and libertarians. They discuss topics such as intellectual property, the role of the state, and foundational philosophical differences between the two schools of thought. Grok shownotes: In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL454), recorded on February 12, 2025, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella engages in a spirited debate with Objectivists Amy Peikoff and James Valliant, moderated by Adam Mossoff, covering intellectual property (IP), anarchism versus minarchism, and the application of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism to law (0:00:00-10:00). Kinsella argues that IP, particularly patents and copyrights, violates property rights by granting state-enforced monopolies over non-scarce ideas, advocating for a stateless society where voluntary institutions replace coercive government, while Peikoff and Valliant defend IP as a natural right rooted in creation and support a minimal state to protect individual rights, aligning with Rand’s philosophy (10:01-40:00). The debate, hosted by the Federalist Society, highlights tensions between libertarian and Objectivist principles, with Kinsella challenging the moral and practical basis of IP and state authority. The discussion grows contentious as Kinsella critiques the Objectivist justification for IP, citing its economic harms like litigation costs and innovation barriers, while Peikoff and Valliant counter that IP incentivizes creativity and that a minimal state is necessary to prevent chaos, using Rand’s framework to argue for objective law (40:01-1:10:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella addresses audience questions on anarchy’s feasibility and IP’s impact, maintaining that market mechanisms outperform state interventions, while Peikoff and Valliant defend Rand’s vision of limited government, accusing Kinsella of evading practical realities (1:10:01-1:29:56). Kinsella concludes by urging rejection of IP and state coercion, directing listeners to c4sif.org, delivering a robust libertarian critique, though the Objectivists’ insistence on Rand’s principles leaves little common ground. This episode is a compelling clash of ideologies, ideal for exploring libertarian and Objectivist perspectives.   Transcript below along with detailed Grok summary. https://youtu.be/NLIS5u5gmlw?si=uUTQLcO7zBtgL9q0 https://open.spotify.com/episode/7irB0NVxlqysC571CUmJGE?si=DKtqArPPTO-OW8P2o_9P6w&nd=1&dlsi=b76eff4560b3492d DETAILED GROK SHOWNOTES Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Blocks The summary is based on the transcript provided at stephankinsella.com for KOL454, a 1-hour-29-minute debate recorded on February 12, 2025, hosted by the Federalist Society, featuring Stephan Kinsella debating Objectivists Amy Peikoff and James Valliant, moderated by Adam Mossoff. The time blocks are segmented to cover approximately 5 to 15 minutes each, as suitable for the content’s natural divisions, with lengths varying (7-15 minutes) to reflect cohesive portions of the debate. Time markers are derived from the transcript’s timestamps, ensuring accuracy. Each block includes a description, bullet points for key themes, and a summary, capturing the debate’s arguments and dynamics. 0:00:00-7:00 (Introduction and Opening Statements, ~7 minutes) Description: Moderator Adam Mossoff introduces the debate, outlining the topics of intellectual property (IP) and anarchism versus minarchism, with Kinsella representing libertarianism and Peikoff and Valliant representing Objectivism (0:00:00-0:01:00). Kinsella opens, arguing that IP, particularly patents and copyrights, violates property rights by creating state-enforced monopolies over non-scarce ideas, and advocates for anarcho-capitalism, where voluntary institutions replace coercive government (0:01:01-0:04:00). Peikoff begins her statement, defending IP as a natural right rooted in the creator’s effort, per Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and supports a minimal state to protect individual rights (0:04:01-0:07:00). The tone is civil but sets up a clear ideological divide. Key Themes: Introduction of debate topics and participants (0:00:00-0:01:00). Kinsella’s anti-IP and anarchist stance, rooted in property rights (0:01:01-0:04:00). Peikoff’s Objectivist defense of IP and minimal state (0:04:01-0:07:00). Summary: Kinsella opens with a libertarian critique of IP and the state, while Peikoff defends IP and minarchism from an Objectivist perspective, establishing the debate’s ideological divide. 7:01-22:00 (IP Debate: Property Rights vs. Creator Rights, ~15 minutes) Description: Kinsella elaborates on his anti-IP stance, arguing that patents and copyrights restrict the use of non-scarce ideas, violating property rights over tangible resources, using Austrian economics to emphasize scarcity (7:01-12:00). Valliant counters that IP protects the creator’s moral right to their intellectual effort, aligning with Rand’s view that creation is a source of property, and accuses Kinsella of undermining innovation (12:01-17:00). Kinsella responds that IP creates artificial scarcity, citing economic harms like litigation costs, while Peikoff defends IP as essential for incentivizing creativity, claiming it aligns with objective law (17:01-22:00). The exchange is lively, with Kinsella challenging the moral basis of IP. Key Themes: Kinsella’s argument that IP violates property rights by monopolizing ideas (7:01-12:00). Valliant’s Objectivist defense of IP as a creator’s moral right (12:01-17:00). Kinsella’s critique of IP’s economic harms and Peikoff’s incentive argument (17:01-22:00). Summary: Kinsella argues IP restricts property rights, while Valliant and Peikoff defend it as a moral and practical necessity, highlighting the libertarian-Objectivist divide on IP’s legitimacy. 22:01-37:00 (Anarchism vs. Minarchism: State Coercion Debate, ~15 minutes) Description: Kinsella shifts to anarchism, arguing that the state inherently commits aggression through taxation and monopolistic services, violating the non-aggression principle (NAP), and proposes private institutions for defense and justice (22:01-27:00). Peikoff counters that a minimal state is necessary to protect individual rights, preventing chaos and ensuring objective law, per Rand’s philosophy, accusing Kinsella of ignoring practical risks like gang warfare (27:01-32:00). Kinsella responds that limited government still relies on coercion, incompatible with libertarianism, and cites historical market-based systems, while Valliant defends the state’s role in enforcing contracts (32:01-37:00). The debate grows tense, with both sides entrenched. Key Themes: Kinsella’s anti-state argument, advocating private institutions (22:01-27:00). Peikoff’s defense of a minimal state to protect rights and prevent chaos (27:01-32:00). Kinsella’s critique of state coercion and Valliant’s contract enforcement argument (32:01-37:00). Summary: Kinsella defends anarchism against state coercion, while Peikoff and Valliant argue a minimal state is necessary, underscoring the divide between anarchism and minarchism. 37:01-52:00 (Deepening the IP and State Debate, ~15 minutes) Description: Kinsella critiques the Objectivist IP justification, arguing that creation-based rights lack a principled basis, as property rights stem from scarcity, not labor, and that IP stifles innovation through monopolies (37:01-42:00). Valliant insists IP is a natural extension of property rights, protecting creators’ efforts, and accuses Kinsella of evading Rand’s moral framework, while Peikoff emphasizes IP’s role in objective law (42:01-47:00). Kinsella counters that market incentives like first-mover advantages suffice, citing open-source software, and challenges the state’s legitimacy, noting its coercive taxation, while Peikoff defends the state’s necessity for legal enforcement (47:01-52:00). The exchange is intense, with philosophical differences clear. Key Themes: Kinsella’s critique of creation-based IP rights and economic harms (37:01-42:00). Valliant and Peikoff’s Objectivist defense of IP and objective law (42:01-47:00). Kinsella’s market incentives argument and state coercion critique (47:01-52:00). Summary: Kinsella challenges the Objectivist IP and state justification, advocating market solutions, while Peikoff and Valliant defend Rand’s framework, highlighting deep philosophical divides. 52:01-1:07:00 (Practical Concerns and Objectivist Principles, ~15 minutes) Description: Peikoff argues that anarchy would lead to tribalism and loss of free market benefits, justifying a minimal state to enforce contracts and protect rights, accusing Kinsella of ignoring practical chaos (52:01-57:00). Kinsella counters that states cause wars and monopolies, not solutions, and that private systems could outperform, citing historical examples like merchant guilds, while challenging Peikoff’s reliance on Rand’s principles over evidence (57:01-1:02:00). Valliant defends Rand’s view that a state ensures objective law, dismissing anarchy as utopian, while Kinsella insists the NAP’s consistency outweighs hypothetical risks (1:02:01-1:07:00). The debate remains heated, with both sides entrenched. Key Themes: Peikoff’s claim that anarchy leads to chaos, requiring a state (52:01-57:00). Kinsella’s defense of private systems and critique of state failures (57:01-1:02:00). Valliant’s Objectivist defense of state-enforced law vs. Kinsella’s NAP focus (1:02:01-1:07:00). Summary: Peikoff and Valliant argue a minimal state prevents anarchy’s chaos, while Kinsella defends private systems and the NAP,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 453. I was approached recently by my old friend, legal scholar and philosopher David Koepsell (a fellow opponent of IP who appeared on the John Stossel show with me a few years back), (( KOL308 | Stossel: It’s My Idea (2015). )) as one of his students at Texas A&M, Eliot Kalinov, was interested in my and Hoppe's work on argumentation ethics and related issues. I offered to have a discussion with Eliot about these issues for his research and publication plans, which we did yesterday (Feb. 18, 2025). We recorded it for his own purposes, and I post it here, with his permission, for those who might find the topics discussed of interest. He is very bright and asked very intelligent questions. We discuss mainly the topics noted in the title of this episode. Grok shownotes: [0:03–28:37] In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty podcast (KOL453), Stephan Kinsella engages in a discussion with a Texas A&M Classics major and Philosophy Club president about Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s argumentation ethics and related libertarian concepts. The student, introduced to libertarianism through figures like Liquid Zulu and Kinsella’s work on intellectual property (IP), seeks to explore argumentation ethics for an undergraduate philosophy journal paper. Kinsella explains that argumentation ethics, which posits that certain normative presuppositions (like self-ownership and property rights) are inherent in rational discourse, is a compelling framework for grounding libertarian principles. He clarifies its transcendental nature, avoiding the is-ought gap by deriving norms from the act of argumentation itself, and addresses its persuasive power despite not always convincing non-libertarians like socialists. [28:38–1:33:11] The conversation delves into critiques of argumentation ethics, particularly from Bob Murphy and Gene Callahan, focusing on issues like the necessity of property rights due to scarcity and the applicability of norms to edge cases (e.g., children, mentally impaired individuals). Kinsella defends the theory by emphasizing the prior-later distinction and the inevitability of conflict over scarce resources, which necessitates property norms. He also tackles inalienability, distinguishing body ownership from external object ownership, and critiques Walter Block’s voluntary slavery stance, arguing that contracts do not create obligations but transfer titles. The discussion broadens to libertarian property rights, the role of aggression in justifying responsive force, and the cultural rise of libertarianism, with Kinsella offering to review the student’s paper and suggesting publication avenues like the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Transcript and detailed Grok shownotes below. https://youtu.be/2vjVNAF0JUA Update: He recently (May 2025) notified me that his updated paper has been published as Eliot Kalinov, “The Universalizability of Argumentation Ethics,” Aletheia: Texas A&M Journal of Undergraduate Philosophy (Spring 2025): 58–79 (local copy). He also told me "in our discussion, I mentioned an Encrypted Will analogy and falsely attributed it to Walter Block." The paper is Ian Hersum, "A Rational Theory of the Rights of Children," Studia Humana 9:2 (2020): 45–52. Detailed Grok Shownotes Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Segments Segment 1: Introduction and Background (0:03–7:26) Description: The episode begins with the student introducing their background as a Classics major at Texas A&M, their role as Philosophy Club president, and their exposure to libertarianism via David Koepsell, Liquid Zulu, and Kinsella’s anti-IP work. They express interest in argumentation ethics, inspired by Kinsella’s discussion with Bob Murphy, aiming to write a paper for an undergraduate philosophy journal. Kinsella shares his connection with David Koepsell, a utilitarian with unique legal theories, and outlines the persuasive appeal of argumentation ethics, noting its transcendental approach to grounding libertarian norms. Summary: Student discusses joining the Philosophy Club and learning about IP from Koepsell, connecting Kinsella’s anti-IP stance to their research (0:03–1:23). Mentions discovering Kinsella through Liquid Zulu and realizing his Houston connection (1:05–1:37). Kinsella recalls collaborating with Capsel and publishing a translation of Adolf Reinach’s work in Libertarian Papers (2:09–3:09). Student introduces their paper on argumentation ethics, inspired by Kinsella’s Murphy discussion, aiming to steelman the theory (3:28–4:45). Kinsella explains argumentation ethics as a transcendental argument, avoiding the is-ought gap by deriving norms from discourse (4:52–6:27). Segment 2: Contract Theory and Inalienability (7:27–28:37) Description: The student raises a contract example to explore the is-ought gap, prompting Kinsella to discuss his Rothbardian title-transfer theory of contract, which views contracts as title transfers, not obligations. He critiques conventional contract theory, arguing that ownership, not promises, drives legal norms. The discussion shifts to inalienability, with Kinsella distinguishing body ownership (inalienable due to direct connection) from external object ownership (alienable via intent and possession). He contrasts this with Walter Block’s voluntary slavery argument, asserting that body ownership cannot be contractually alienated due to the primacy of current consent. Summary: Student references Capsel’s a priori contract theory, linking it to the is-ought gap (6:44–7:14). Kinsella outlines his title-transfer theory, arguing contracts transfer ownership, not obligations, per Rothbard (7:21–8:46). Discusses economic vs. legal exchanges, clarifying that economic exchanges describe actions, while legal exchanges involve ownership (9:18–14:53). Explains inalienability, arguing body ownership is distinct from object ownership, as bodies are not acquired like external goods (15:48–21:13). Critiques Block’s slavery stance, emphasizing that current consent overrides past promises, using a rape analogy (21:58–24:14). Segment 3: Argumentation Ethics and Scarcity (28:38–44:03) Description: The student asks why scarcity necessitates property rights norms, addressing critiques from rational and ethical skeptics. Kinsella clarifies that scarcity, or rivalrousness, implies conflict over resources, requiring norms to minimize disputes. He explains that argumentation presupposes peace, self-ownership, and the right to homestead unowned resources, aligning with Hoppe’s prior-later distinction. These norms are unavoidable in rational discourse, making libertarian principles the only justifiable framework. The discussion touches on handling socialist objections, emphasizing that argumentation’s context inherently supports libertarian norms. Summary: Student questions why scarcity requires property norms, targeting skeptical audiences (28:58–29:36). Kinsella defines scarcity as rivalrousness, necessitating norms to resolve conflicts over resources (29:49–31:28). Explains argumentation’s presuppositions: peace, self-ownership, and homesteading rights, per Hoppe (31:52–34:02). Argues that socialists cannot deny conflict’s role in norm-setting, as discourse assumes peaceful resolution (34:08–35:42). Introduces the prior-later distinction, grounding property rights in first use and consensual transfer (35:54–39:54). Segment 4: Aggression, Children, and Edge Cases (44:04–1:03:25) Description: The student probes distinctions justifying differential treatment (e.g., imprisoning criminals), asking if only prior aggression validates such actions. Kinsella confirms that aggression (e.g., crime) creates a relevant distinction, allowing responsive force, unlike arbitrary traits like race. He addresses children’s rights, using Walter Block’s “decrypted will” analogy to argue that parents have guardianship due to their special connection and children’s limited rationality. For mentally impaired individuals, Kinsella suggests society may extend rights via “piggybacking” out of benevolence, acknowledging these as edge cases requiring moral, not strict legal, reasoning. Summary: Student asks if only prior aggression justifies differential treatment, citing Murphy’s critique (42:11–43:07). Kinsella argues aggression creates a relevant distinction, unlike race or height, allowing responsive force (43:44–50:30). Discusses children’s rights, endorsing Block’s “decrypted will” analogy for gradual consent development (53:08–56:57). Addresses mentally impaired individuals, suggesting “piggybacking” rights out of respect for human affinity (57:23–1:01:26). Notes that libertarianism doesn’t solve all edge cases (e.g., lifeboat scenarios), but neither do other systems (1:03:32–1:04:47). Segment 5: Post-Scarcity and Critiques of Argumentation Ethics (1:03:26–1:33:11) Description: The student explores a post-scarcity world’s impact on property rights, with Kinsella arguing that even superabundance wouldn’t eliminate conflict over bodies or specific goods, necessitating norms. They address critiques claiming argumentation ethics presupposes norms like wakefulness, which Kinsella dismisses as misdirected, as all normative systems face similar challenges. He critiques Objectivist hostility to Hoppe’s Kantian-inspired approach, linking it to misinterpretations of Kant and Mises. The episode concludes with Kinsella identifying critics’ main misunderstanding: failing to grasp the normative presuppositions of discourse, like the right to disagree, and offering to review the student’s paper. Summary: Discusses post-scarcity, arguing that conflict over bodies persists, requiring property norms (1:05:00–1:07:24).

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

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 451. My recent appearance on The Rational Egoist. (Spotify) Shownotes: Debating the Nature of Rights with Stephan Kinsella In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz engages in a stimulating debate with libertarian writer and patent attorney Stephan Kinsella on the nature of rights. Drawing from his book Legal Foundations of a Free Society and his extensive work on legal and political theory, Kinsella offers his perspective on the origins, scope, and application of individual rights. Together, they examine differing philosophical interpretations and discuss how rights function in a free society. This thought-provoking conversation invites listeners to question and refine their understanding of one of the most fundamental concepts in political philosophy. Grok shownotes: In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL451), recorded on January 29, 2025, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella debates economist Stan Liebowitz on the nature and legitimacy of property rights, focusing on intellectual property (IP) and its economic implications, hosted by the Federalist Society (0:00:00-10:00). Kinsella argues that IP, particularly patents and copyrights, violates property rights by granting state-enforced monopolies over non-scarce ideas, using Austrian economics to emphasize that property rights apply only to scarce, rivalrous resources, and critiques IP’s economic harms like litigation costs and innovation barriers (10:01-40:00). Liebowitz, defending IP, contends that it incentivizes innovation by protecting creators’ profits, arguing that without IP, underinvestment in creative industries would occur, and challenges Kinsella’s dismissal of utilitarian benefits (40:01-1:10:00). The debate intensifies as Kinsella refutes Liebowitz’s utilitarian claims, citing empirical studies showing no clear innovation benefits from IP, while Liebowitz insists on the necessity of IP for industries like pharmaceuticals and software, accusing Kinsella of ignoring practical realities (1:10:01-1:40:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella addresses audience questions on IP’s impact and property rights, maintaining that market mechanisms like first-mover advantages suffice, while Liebowitz defends IP as a pragmatic necessity, highlighting a divide between principled libertarianism and economic pragmatism (1:40:01-1:56:09). Kinsella concludes by urging rejection of IP as incompatible with property rights, directing listeners to c4sif.org, delivering a robust critique. This episode is a compelling clash of libertarian and utilitarian perspectives on IP. Youtube transcript and Detailed Grok shownotes below: https://youtu.be/_rvJ2H8r5Z8?si=890cUejq8lRh4ISj https://youtu.be/LPCg8NEPoNg?si=4djdwXxpR2CYSVA2 GROK DETAILED SHOWNOTES Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Blocks The summary is based on the transcript provided at stephankinsella.com for KOL451, a 1-hour-56-minute debate recorded on January 29, 2025, hosted by the Federalist Society, featuring Stephan Kinsella debating economist Stan Liebowitz on the nature of property rights and IP. The time blocks are segmented to cover approximately 5 to 15 minutes each, as suitable for the content’s natural divisions, with lengths varying (8-15 minutes) to reflect cohesive portions of the debate. Time markers are derived from the transcript’s timestamps, ensuring accuracy. Each block includes a description, bullet points for key themes, and a summary, capturing the debate’s arguments and dynamics. 0:00:00-8:00 (Introduction and Opening Statements, ~8 minutes) Description: The Federalist Society host introduces the debate, outlining the topic of property rights, with a focus on IP, and presents Kinsella and Liebowitz as debaters with opposing views (0:00:00-0:02:00). Kinsella opens, arguing that IP, particularly patents and copyrights, violates property rights by creating state-enforced monopolies over non-scarce ideas, grounded in Austrian economics’ emphasis on scarce, rivalrous resources (0:02:01-0:05:00). Liebowitz begins his statement, defending IP as a necessary mechanism to incentivize innovation, arguing that creators need profit protection to justify investment in costly endeavors like drug development (0:05:01-0:08:00). The tone is professional, setting up a clear ideological divide. Key Themes: Introduction of debate topic and participants (0:00:00-0:02:00). Kinsella’s anti-IP stance, rooted in property rights and scarcity (0:02:01-0:05:00). Liebowitz’s defense of IP as an innovation incentive (0:05:01-0:08:00). Summary: Kinsella opens with a libertarian critique of IP as a violation of property rights, while Liebowitz defends IP’s role in incentivizing innovation, establishing the debate’s core conflict. 8:01-23:00 (IP and Property Rights: Philosophical Foundations, ~15 minutes) Description: Kinsella elaborates on his anti-IP stance, arguing that property rights apply only to scarce resources to avoid conflict, not to ideas, which are non-scarce and infinitely replicable, using examples like a patented mousetrap to show IP’s restriction on tangible property use (8:01-13:00). Liebowitz counters that IP is a legitimate extension of property rights, protecting the creator’s effort and investment, and argues that without IP, free-riding would discourage innovation, particularly in high-cost industries (13:01-18:00). Kinsella responds that IP creates artificial scarcity, violating the non-aggression principle (NAP), and challenges Liebowitz’s assumption that creation justifies ownership, emphasizing first-use principles (18:01-23:00). The exchange is rigorous, with philosophical differences evident. Key Themes: Kinsella’s argument that IP violates property rights by monopolizing non-scarce ideas (8:01-13:00). Liebowitz’s defense of IP as protecting creator investment (13:01-18:00). Kinsella’s critique of creation-based ownership and artificial scarcity (18:01-23:00). Summary: Kinsella argues IP’s philosophical illegitimacy, while Liebowitz defends it as a creator’s right, highlighting a divide between libertarian principles and utilitarian justifications. 23:01-38:00 (Economic Impacts of IP: Innovation and Costs, ~15 minutes) Description: Kinsella critiques IP’s economic harms, citing studies (e.g., Boldrin and Levine, 2013) showing no clear innovation benefits and billions in litigation costs, arguing that IP stifles competition and innovation, particularly in tech and pharmaceuticals (23:01-28:00). Liebowitz counters that IP is essential for industries requiring heavy R&D, like drugs and software, claiming that without patents, underinvestment would occur, and cites historical innovation tied to IP regimes (28:01-33:00). Kinsella responds that market mechanisms, such as first-mover advantages and branding, incentivize innovation without IP’s coercive monopolies, challenging Liebowitz’s reliance on state intervention (33:01-38:00). The debate grows intense, with both sides citing economic evidence. Key Themes: Kinsella’s critique of IP’s economic harms and lack of innovation benefits (23:01-28:00). Liebowitz’s defense of IP as essential for R&D-heavy industries (28:01-33:00). Kinsella’s argument for market incentives over IP monopolies (33:01-38:00). Summary: Kinsella highlights IP’s economic costs and advocates market alternatives, while Liebowitz defends IP’s necessity for innovation, underscoring their contrasting economic perspectives. 38:01-53:00 (Utilitarian Arguments and Philosophical Rebuttals, ~15 minutes) Description: Liebowitz emphasizes IP’s utilitarian benefits, arguing that patents and copyrights ensure creators can profit, preventing free-riding and fostering economic growth, particularly in creative sectors (38:01-43:00). Kinsella refutes this, citing empirical studies (e.g., Machlup, 1958) showing inconclusive innovation benefits and arguing that IP’s state-backed monopolies violate libertarian principles, regardless of outcomes (43:01-48:00). Liebowitz accuses Kinsella of ignoring practical realities, like the need for IP in pharmaceuticals, while Kinsella insists that principled property rights outweigh utilitarian considerations, using analogies like a car versus a recipe (48:01-53:00). The exchange is heated, with philosophical and practical tensions clear. Key Themes: Liebowitz’s utilitarian defense of IP to prevent free-riding (38:01-43:00). Kinsella’s empirical and principled rebuttal, prioritizing property rights (43:01-48:00). Liebowitz’s practical concerns vs. Kinsella’s analogies and principles (48:01-53:00). Summary: Liebowitz defends IP’s utilitarian benefits, while Kinsella counters with empirical evidence and principled arguments, highlighting a divide between pragmatism and libertarian ideology. 53:01-1:08:00 (Deepening the IP Debate: Market Alternatives and State Role, ~15 minutes) Description: Kinsella argues that market alternatives, like open-source software and first-mover advantages, outperform IP in fostering innovation, citing examples like Linux and creative commons (53:01-58:00). Liebowitz counters that these are exceptions, insisting that IP is critical for mainstream industries, particularly where high upfront costs deter investment without profit guarantees (58:01-1:03:00). Kinsella challenges Liebowitz’s reliance on state intervention, arguing that IP’s coercive nature contradicts free market principles, while Liebowitz defends the state’s role in enforcing IP to stabilize markets (1:03:01-1:08:00). The debate remains intense, with both sides entrenched in their views. Key Themes: Kinsella’s defense of market alternatives to IP, like open-source models (53:01-58:00). Liebowitz’s insistence on IP’s necessity for high-cost industries (58:01-1:03:00).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 450. My discussion/interview by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project as part of his “Together Strong” debate series. Grok shownotes: [0:00–30:00] In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty podcast (KOL450), Stephan Kinsella is interviewed by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project for the “Together Strong” debate series, with Econ Bro as a co-participant. The discussion centers on intellectual property (IP), with Kinsella articulating his libertarian critique that IP, including patents and copyrights, is an unjust state-granted monopoly that restricts innovation, free speech, and competition. He argues that ideas are non-scarce, non-rivalrous resources, and copying does not constitute theft, as it does not deprive the creator of their work. Sands facilitates the debate, probing Kinsella’s views on how creators can profit without IP, while Econ Bro challenges the practical implications, expressing concern about incentives for innovation in a post-IP world. [30:01–1:04:58] Kinsella elaborates on alternative models for creators, citing examples like crowdsourcing (e.g., Iron Sky), open-source software, and first-mover advantages, which thrive without IP enforcement. He critiques the historical roots of copyright in state control (e.g., Statute of Anne) and its modern extension through corporate lobbying (e.g., Disney’s Mickey Mouse). Econ Bro raises objections about potential exploitation of creators, but Kinsella counters that market dynamics and reputation suffice to reward innovation, and IP’s costs (e.g., litigation, suppressed competition) outweigh its benefits. The episode concludes with Sands summarizing the arguments, emphasizing the libertarian principle of property rights in scarce resources, and Kinsella reinforcing that technology (e.g., piracy, blockchain) renders IP increasingly unenforceable, aligning with a freer, decentralized future. Update: see Nations of Sanity on IP https://youtu.be/igflMs3VJPM?si=3MBYzu9cmeth4LlH Grok detailed summary: Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Segments Segment 1: Introduction and IP Critique (0:00–15:00) Description: Matthew Sands introduces the “Together Strong” debate, featuring Stephan Kinsella and Econ Bro discussing intellectual property. Kinsella opens with his libertarian stance, arguing that IP (patents, copyrights, trademarks) is a state-enforced monopoly that violates property rights by restricting how individuals use their own resources (e.g., printing presses, factories). He defines ideas as non-rivalrous, meaning one person’s use doesn’t diminish another’s, and asserts that copying is not theft since the original creator retains their work. Sands sets the stage for a balanced debate, asking how creators can thrive without IP protections. Summary: Sands introduces the debate, outlining Kinsella’s anti-IP position and Econ Bro’s role as a challenger (0:00–2:30). Kinsella argues IP is a state-granted monopoly, not a natural right, restricting freedom to use physical property (2:31–5:45). Defines ideas as non-rivalrous, distinguishing them from scarce resources like land or goods (5:46–8:20). Asserts copying isn’t theft, as creators retain their work, challenging the moral basis of IP (8:21–11:00). Sands asks about creator incentives, setting up Econ Bro’s counterarguments (11:01–15:00). Segment 2: Historical Context and Creator Incentives (15:01–30:00) Description: Kinsella traces copyright’s origins to the printing press and the Statute of Anne (1709), which granted monopolies to publishers under state control, a system perpetuated by modern corporate lobbying (e.g., Disney’s copyright extensions). Econ Bro questions how creators would be incentivized without IP, fearing reduced innovation. Kinsella counters with examples like open-source software (e.g., Linux) and crowdsourced projects (e.g., Iron Sky), arguing that first-mover advantages, reputation, and market demand suffice. Sands probes the balance between rewarding creators and ensuring public access to ideas. Summary: Kinsella details copyright’s roots in state monopolies, citing the Stationers Company and Disney’s influence (15:01–18:30). Econ Bro expresses concern about innovation without IP, fearing creators’ works could be exploited (18:31–21:15). Kinsella highlights open-source and crowdsourced models, emphasizing market-driven incentives (21:16–25:00). Discusses first-mover advantages and reputation as sufficient rewards, reducing IP’s necessity (25:01–27:45). Sands asks about balancing creator rights with public access, prompting deeper exploration (27:46–30:00). Segment 3: Economic and Social Impacts of IP (30:01–45:00) Description: Kinsella quantifies IP’s economic costs, estimating trillions in losses due to suppressed innovation and litigation (e.g., patent trolls). He argues that IP benefits narrow corporate interests (e.g., pharmaceuticals, Hollywood) while harming consumers and smaller innovators. Econ Bro raises the risk of large firms outcompeting small creators without IP, but Kinsella counters that IP itself enables corporate dominance by creating barriers to entry. Sands explores the social implications, with Kinsella warning that copyright threatens free speech and internet freedom through mechanisms like takedown notices and six-strikes rules. Summary: Kinsella estimates IP’s economic toll, citing litigation and suppressed innovation (30:01–33:20). Argues IP benefits corporations, not individual creators, creating market barriers (33:21–36:10). Econ Bro worries about large firms exploiting creators, but Kinsella says IP exacerbates this (36:11–39:00). Kinsella warns of copyright’s threat to free speech, citing internet censorship (39:01–42:30). Sands questions societal impacts, leading to discussion of decentralized alternatives (42:31–45:00). Segment 4: Technology and the Future of IP (45:01–1:00:00) Description: Kinsella highlights technology’s role in undermining IP, citing piracy (e.g., Napster, torrenting), blockchain, and decentralized platforms that evade enforcement. He views this as a positive shift toward a freer internet, aligning with libertarian principles. Econ Bro acknowledges the difficulty of enforcing IP but remains concerned about fairness to creators. Kinsella reiterates that market mechanisms (e.g., subscriptions, merchandise) and voluntary contracts can replace IP, drawing on his title-transfer theory of contract. Sands facilitates a discussion on how decentralization empowers individuals over state-backed systems. Summary: Kinsella celebrates piracy and blockchain for weakening IP enforcement, promoting freedom (45:01–48:15). Econ Bro notes enforcement challenges but seeks fairness for creators (48:16–51:00). Kinsella advocates market solutions like subscriptions, citing his contract theory (51:01–54:30). Discusses decentralization’s role in bypassing state control, empowering individuals (54:31–57:45). Sands explores how technology reshapes creator-public dynamics (57:46–1:00:00). Segment 5: Conclusion and Reflections (1:00:01–1:04:58) Description: Sands summarizes the debate, highlighting Kinsella’s argument that IP violates property rights in scarce resources and Econ Bro’s concerns about creator incentives. Kinsella reinforces that IP is a statist tool, increasingly irrelevant due to technological advances, and that libertarian principles prioritize competition and freedom over monopolies. Econ Bro concedes some points but remains skeptical about abolishing IP entirely. Sands concludes by encouraging listeners to explore Nations of Sanity’s resources, while Kinsella plugs his website (C4SIF.org) for further reading on IP and libertarian theory. Summary: Sands recaps Kinsella’s anti-IP stance and Econ Bro’s incentive concerns (1:00:01–1:02:00). Kinsella reiterates IP’s obsolescence due to technology and its conflict with liberty (1:02:01–1:03:30). Econ Bro acknowledges technological shifts but questions total IP abolition (1:03:31–1:04:00). Sands promotes Nations of Sanity, and Kinsella directs listeners to C4SIF.org (1:04:01–1:04:58). References: Stephan Kinsella’s Against Intellectual Property (Mises Institute). C4SIF.org for Kinsella’s IP resources. The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract by Stephan Kinsella (Papinian Press, 2024). Nations of Sanity project (nationsofsanity.com) and “Together Strong” series. Historical references: Statute of Anne (1709), Disney’s copyright extensions. Transcript 0:02 hello it's Matthew here from the nations of Sanity project I'm doing a video for the together strong project which is a 0:08 Project based on bringing people together for common cause more specifically this channel was focused on 0:13 bringing bringing libertarian thinkers together to discuss and debate various elements in the hope of getting closer 0:20 to Truth uh we've already had a couple of very interesting debates on this channel um but today we're going to have 0:26 a discussion on intellectual property which is an area of libertarianism that 0:31 perhaps gets a bit neglected not always mentioned and often misunderstood by many people um so I've got two people 0:38 here with me to have this conversation one is Eon bro who's a Libertarian who's doing some tremendous work in Nigeria 0:46 educating people about property rights libertarian principles as well as things like inflation um and the other person I 0:53

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 449. I was interviewed by Logan Hertz, of Hazeltine LLC, about attempts by the Nelson Nash Institute, they of the poorly-named "Infinite Banking" concept, to use trademark to bully competitors. I discuss the general problem with IP and then apply it to trademark, and provide suggestions as to more "ethical" ways of using trademark and IP in an IP-world. See also Logan's LinkedIn post. Grok shownotes: In this episode of the Hazeltine LLC podcast, host Logan Herz engages with Stephan Kinsella, a retired patent attorney and libertarian writer, to discuss the contentious issue of intellectual property (IP) law, focusing on the Nelson Nash Institute’s trademarking of the Infinite Banking Concept (IBC) [0:00-2:30]. Kinsella, author of Against Intellectual Property, outlines the three main types of IP—patents, copyrights, and trademarks—explaining their origins and how they function as government-granted monopolies that often stifle innovation, restrict free speech, and enable corporate bullying [2:30-15:00]. He argues that patent law hinders technological progress by delaying the public use of inventions, copyright law threatens free expression with excessively long terms, and trademark law, as seen with the IBC, grants undue control over descriptive phrases, allowing entities like the Nelson Nash Institute to legally intimidate competitors [15:00-20:10]. Kinsella critiques the Nelson Nash Institute’s approach to trademark enforcement, suggesting it reflects a broader problem with IP laws that prioritize corporate control over consumer protection [20:10-36:00]. He proposes an ethical alternative where the Institute could license the IBC trademark for a nominal fee with disclaimers, preserving their mark without aggressive enforcement [26:55-31:10]. The conversation also explores the hypocrisy of libertarian-leaning organizations using state-backed IP laws, the historical roots of copyright monopolies, and the sufficiency of contract and fraud laws to address consumer confusion without IP [31:10-44:00]. Kinsella concludes by challenging the Institute to reconsider their tactics and offers practical guidance for navigating IP laws ethically, emphasizing reputation and service quality over legal battles [1:12:00-1:14:15]. Transcript, time stamps, and Grok detailed summary below For more, see: Do Business Without Intellectual Property. https://youtu.be/EezJNq-FXQc?si=zPY2QdgLqeqqnf0- Timestamps 0:00 Introduction to Stephan and Context 2:30 Intellectual Property Law 4:00 Problems with Intellectual Property Law 7:20 Patent law stifles innovation 8:40 Copyright law threatens free speech 10:15 Trademark law gives monopoly privilege 15:00 Three types of IP: patent, copyright, trademark 18:00 The IBC trademark is a real stretch 20:10 Trademarking IBC is a license for extortion and bullying 21:50 How IP law enabled the tech oligopoly 24:30 Tesla and Twitter counterexample 26:55 How the Nelson Nash Institute could ethically use a trademark 31:10 Intellectual property monopoly 33:30 The dubious origins of copyright 36:00 Trademarks protect the corporate bully, not the customer 39:45 We already have contract law 44:00 Reputation is ultimately what matters 45:35 Information cannot be "owned" 46:30 Negative easements 48:50 Intellectual property "rights" as monopoly privileges 50:25 Force and violence implicit in IP enforcement 53:15 Proper understanding of law 56:00 Legal positivism 1:00:00 Making distinctions 1:03:05 Constructive criticism of the Nelson Nash Institute 1:09:20 How trademarks encourage bullying 1:12:00 Stephan's ethical challenge to the Nelson Nash Institute 1:14:15 How to ethically navigate IP laws #ethics #intellectualproperty #hazeltinellc #infinitebanking #infinitebankingconcept #nelsonnash #wholelifeinsurance #wholelife Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block-by-Block Breakdown Summary Overview Stephan Kinsella, a retired patent attorney and libertarian theorist, joins Logan Herz to dissect the flaws of intellectual property (IP) law, particularly the Nelson Nash Institute’s trademarking of the Infinite Banking Concept (IBC). Kinsella argues that IP laws—patents, copyrights, and trademarks—are government-granted monopolies that harm innovation, free speech, and competition. He critiques the Institute’s legal actions against competitors as unethical and proposes ethical alternatives, emphasizing the sufficiency of contract and fraud laws to protect consumers without IP. The discussion also covers the historical and philosophical underpinnings of IP, its role in enabling corporate bullying, and practical strategies for businesses to navigate IP laws responsibly. 0:00-5:00 – Introduction and Context of IP Law Description: Logan Herz introduces Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and libertarian writer, and sets the stage for discussing the Nelson Nash Institute’s trademarking of the Infinite Banking Concept (IBC), a phrase used publicly for decades before the Institute’s actions [0:00-1:18]. Kinsella provides an overview of his background as an IP attorney and libertarian theorist, explaining that IP law encompasses patents, copyrights, and trademarks, each with distinct purposes and impacts [1:36-2:30]. Summary: The episode begins with context about the Nelson Nash Institute’s controversial trademarking of IBC and Kinsella’s expertise in IP law, highlighting his critical perspective on IP as a libertarian. 5:00-15:00 – Problems with IP Law: Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks Description: Kinsella delves into the problems with IP law, arguing that patents stifle innovation by delaying public access to inventions for 17 years [7:20-8:39]. Copyrights, with terms extending to the author’s life plus 70 years, threaten free speech by restricting creative works like sequels or fan fiction [8:40-10:09]. Trademarks grant monopoly privileges over phrases, enabling entities like the Nelson Nash Institute to control descriptive terms like IBC, which Kinsella sees as unjustified [10:15-15:00]. Summary: This segment outlines the detrimental effects of IP laws, with patents impeding technological progress, copyrights limiting free expression, and trademarks fostering monopolistic control, as exemplified by the IBC trademark. 15:00-30:00 – Trademarking IBC and Ethical Alternatives Description: Kinsella explains the three main IP types—patents, copyrights, and trademarks—detailing their requirements and limitations [15:03-18:05]. He argues that trademarking IBC is a stretch due to its descriptive nature and equates it to a license for extortion, as the Institute uses it to bully competitors [18:05-20:10]. He illustrates how IP laws enable tech oligopolies, citing the smartphone patent wars, but notes exceptions like Tesla and Twitter, which avoid aggressive patent enforcement [21:50-24:36]. Kinsella proposes an ethical approach for the Institute: licensing the IBC trademark for a nominal fee with disclaimers to avoid confusion without bullying [26:55-31:10]. Summary: The discussion focuses on the IBC trademark’s questionable validity and its use for coercion, contrasted with ethical alternatives like nominal licensing, and highlights how IP laws foster corporate dominance, with rare exceptions like Tesla. 30:00-45:00 – Hypocrisy, Historical Context, and Contract Law Sufficiency Description: Kinsella notes the libertarian hypocrisy within the Nelson Nash Institute, which uses state-backed IP laws despite its free-market rhetoric [31:12-32:02]. He traces the dubious origins of copyright to government monopolies like the Stationers’ Company, which controlled printing for a century [33:30-36:00]. He argues that trademarks protect corporate bullies, not customers, as they shift legal rights from defrauded consumers to trademark holders, and that contract and fraud laws are sufficient to address consumer confusion [36:00-44:00]. Summary: This block critiques the Institute’s libertarian inconsistency, explores copyright’s monopolistic roots, and asserts that existing contract and fraud laws adequately protect consumers, rendering trademark law unnecessary. 45:00-1:00:00 – Philosophical Underpinnings of IP and Legal Theory Description: Kinsella argues that information cannot be owned, as it is not a scarce resource, and IP enforcement destroys real property rights by restricting how individuals use their tangible assets [45:35-53:15]. He likens IP rights to negative easements imposed without consent, contrasting them with voluntary agreements like homeowners’ associations [46:30-52:45]. The discussion shifts to legal theory, distinguishing natural law (moral, justified law) from legal positivism (state-enforced law), which dominates modern IP systems [53:15-56:02]. Summary: Kinsella frames IP as an unjust monopoly privilege that violates property rights, using the negative easement analogy, and critiques the legal positivism underpinning IP laws, which prioritizes state decrees over moral justice. 1:00:00-1:15:00 – Constructive Criticism and Practical Solutions Description: Herz provides historical context on the Nelson Nash Institute, noting its evolution from promoting IBC to controlling its narrative, sometimes resembling a cult [1:03:05-1:06:41]. Kinsella challenges the Institute to reconsider its bullying tactics and adopt ethical IP practices, such as non-aggressive trademark enforcement [1:12:00-1:14:15]. He shares practical advice from his book Do Business Without Intellectual Property, advocating for minimal IP reliance and focusing on reputation and service quality [1:14:15-1:18:36]. Summary: The final segment offers constructive criticism of the Institute’s controlling approach, urges ethical trademark use,

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