Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 275. This is my appearance in Episode 54 of the Did You Know Crypto Podcast, with host Dustin Dreifuerst. We talked about ownership of bitcoin and related issues.  As Dustin summarized in his show notes: Stephan and I talk about… Ownership, Control & Property as Legal concepts Why you cant actually “own” Bitcoin How Bitcoin is about secrets not property Ownership is a state augmentation Why this isn’t an attack on Bitcoin https://youtu.be/NQ2GOpMjzTo (I previously appeared on this podcast: KOL266 | Did You Know Crypto Podcast, Ep. 36: Bitcoin Patent Trolling.) For more information see this episode and related show notes: KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019).

[From my Webnote series] On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse Am I a Bitcoin Maximalist? Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 274; also as PFP215 | Stephan Kinsella, Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019). For the Q&A session, see KOL272-2 | Q&A with Hülsmann, Dürr, Kinsella, Hoppe (PFS 2019). [Update: For an article based on the transcript, see "Nobody Owns Bitcoin," StephanKinsella.com (Sept. 20, 2019). See also Pavel Slutskiy, "Yes, You Should Own Bitcoin,” J. Libertarian Stud. 28, no. 1 (2024): 1–19. Update: See KOL395 | Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection (PFS 2022).] This is my presentation to the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society on Sunday, Sept. 15, 2019. Powerpoint slides embedded below. Youtube embedded below. Also podcast at PFP215. Some related Q&A is in this session which was held later on the same day: Hülsmann, Kinsella, Dürr, Hoppe, Q&A (PFS 2019) [PFP218]. Related links/relevant material:  KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) OTHERS: Leon Wankum, "Bitcoin is a Possession, Not Property," Bitcoin Magazine (Oct. 2, 2023) Konrad Graf, Are Bitcoins Ownable?: Property Rights, IP Wrongs, and Legal-Theory Implications [PDF] Preston Byrne, What do you legally “own” with Bitcoin? A short introduction to krypto-property Marty Bent, "Is Bitcoin a New Type of Property?", Bitcoin Magazine (Jul. 29, 2022) On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse LeFevre on Intellectual Property and the “Ownership of Intangibles” The “If you own something, that implies that you can sell it; if you sell something, that implies you must own it first” Fallacies, “The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) “IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender The Limits of Libertarianism?: A Dissenting View KOL249 | WCN’s Max Hillebrand: Intellectual Property and Who Owns Bitcoin Cordato and Kirzner on Intellectual Property Mises on property KOL246 | CryptoVoices: Bitcoin as Property, Digital Goods, Personal Liberty, and Intellectual Property My facebook post discussing ownership of Bitcoin Tom Bell: Copyright Erodes Property? Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, WSJ Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; Miami Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Not Money; Dismisses Money Laundering, Transmitting Charges How to handle bitcoin gains on your taxes SEC: US Securities Laws ‘May Apply’ to Token Sales Federal Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Real Money KOL233 | Mises UK Podcast: Bitcoin Ownership and the Global Withering of the State for more on whether bitcoin is ownable property, see this Facebook thread KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender KOL086 | RARE Radio interview with Kurt Wallace: The War on Bitcoin KOL 043 | Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast, with Michael Shanklin: Bitcoin, Legal Reform, Morality of Voting, Rothbard on Copyright Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, WSJ Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; Miami Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Not Money; Dismisses Money Laundering, Transmitting Charges How to handle bitcoin gains on your taxes SEC: US Securities Laws ‘May Apply’ to Token Sales Federal Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Real Money KOL249 | WCN's Max Hillebrand: Intellectual Property and Who Owns Bitcoin What do you legally “own” with Bitcoin? Posted on November 23, 2018 by prestonbyrne Portugal Tax Authorities Clarify That Buying Or Selling Cryptocurrency Is Tax-Free In the be-careful-what-you-wish-for dept., see NOW THAT BITCOIN IS CONSIDERED PROPERTY IN THE UK, RECLAIMING RANSOMED ASSETS SENT TO EXCHANGES IS MUCH EASIER OTHERS: WSJ article Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, the article notes that legal tender laws are, in fact, jeopardizing BTC. Bitcoins are now classified by the IRS as "property" "instead of" as legal tender money, meaning capital gains taxes are owed on transactions.... This is one danger of BTC advocates using the language of property rights to describe bitcoins. I would argue that bitcoins are not legally owned and thus capital gains taxes are not applicable—or at least, this is one argument the target of a government tax evasion suit might want to use. Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland: "Bitcoin Association Switzerland reports that, according to the Swiss Federal Tax Administration, no VAT applies to bitcoin in Switzerland. The transfer of bitcoin doesn’t constitute delivery of goods or services, and therefore it’s not subject to VAT." for more on whether bitcoin is ownable property, see this Facebook thread Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; SEC: US Securities Laws 'May Apply' to Token Sales Update: @NSKinsella I don't know if you ever wrote about this, but would you consider domain names to be private property? After all, in practice, they are scarce, and it's usually not possible to have two people run websites using the same domain name simultaneously. Same with IPs. — Kadaververwertungsanstalt (@witheredsummer) July 8, 2025 From Grok:   Stephan Kinsella’s Arguments on Digital Ownership Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian legal theorist, argues in his podcast episode KOL274: Nobody Owns Bitcoin (2019 Property and Freedom Society) that Bitcoin cannot be owned as property because it is not a scarce, tangible resource. This response extends Kinsella’s arguments to domain names, Twitter handles, Facebook accounts/profiles, phone numbers, and places in line (queues), incorporating details about the @X handle seizure by X Corp in July 2023 and the role of ICANN in domain name governance. Context: The @X Handle Seizure When Elon Musk acquired Twitter in October 2022 and rebranded it as X in July 2023, the @X handle was reassigned from its original owner, Gene X Hwang, to X Corp for corporate branding. Below, we address the incident and its implications. Did Elon Musk Unilaterally Seize Accounts Like @X? Yes, X Corp, under Musk’s control, took the @X handle from Gene X Hwang without prior consent in July 2023 for the platform’s rebranding. No evidence suggests Musk seized accounts for personal use; the @X reassignment was for corporate use. No other specific account seizures are widely reported. Was This Permitted by the Terms of Service (TOS)? The seizure was allowed under Twitter’s updated 2023 TOS, which permitted X Corp to reclaim usernames for branding purposes. The TOS gave the company discretion to reassign handles without notice, though this sparked criticism for lacking transparency. Did Musk Apologize or Offer Alternatives/Compensation? Musk did not personally apologize. X Corp offered Hwang alternative handles (e.g., @X12345678998765) and minor perks (e.g., merchandise), but no financial compensation. Hwang expressed mild disappointment but accepted the reassignment. Articles on the @X Incident The Telegraph: “Elon Musk takes over @X Twitter account without paying owner” (July 26, 2023) Link Details the reassignment without payment, offering alternative handles. Forbes: “X Seizes @X Handle From Longtime Twitter User Without Compensation” (July 26, 2023) Link Notes the lack of compensation and TOS permissibility. Mashable: “Elon Musk’s X/Twitter is taking usernames now, and users aren’t happy” (July 26, 2023) Link Covers user backlash and TOS implications. Gizmodo: “Elon Musk’s X Corp Snags @X Handle From User Without Payment” (July 26, 2023) Link Discusses the abrupt transfer and lack of payment. The New York Times: “Twitter’s Rebrand to X Prompts Username Controversy” (July 27, 2023) Link Mentions the @X incident amid rebranding chaos. Kinsella’s Core Argument on Bitcoin and Property Kinsella’s libertarian framework posits that property rights resolve conflicts over scarce, tangible resources. Key points: Scarcity: Property rights apply only to scarce resources (e.g., land). Non-scarce entities, like information, don’t require ownership. Ideal Objects: Digital constructs (e.g., Bitcoin’s blockchain) are infinitely replicable, non-scarce “ideal objects.” Bitcoin: Bitcoin is information, not a tangible resource. Private keys grant control, not ownership, as claiming ownership restricts others’ use of their hardware. Extending Kinsella’s Arguments Kinsella would argue that domain names, Twitter handles, Facebook accounts, phone numbers, and queue positions are not owned as property due to their non-scarce or contractual nature. 1. Domain Names (ICANN) Definition: Domain names (e.g., example.com) are human-readable aliases for IP addresses, mapped via DNS. ICANN oversees DNS, accredits registrars, and resolves disputes via UDRP. Kinsella’s View: Not Scarce: Domain names are non-scarce strings; scarcity is artificial via ICANN’s system. Contractual: Registration is a lease, not ownership. Users “own” the contract, not the string. Cybersquatting: Kinsella defends first registration and resale, rejecting IP-based claims as artificial scarcity. 2. Twitter Handles Context: Handles (e.g., @X) are identifiers in X’s database,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 273. This is my appearance as a guest on Episode 302: "Stephan Kinsella Explains Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics", of the Free Man Beyond the Wall podcast, by host Pete Quinones (formerly known as "Mance Rayder"), hosted by The Libertarian Institute. From his shownotes: Many libertarian/anarchists have heard of the concept of Argumentation Ethics as developed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe but have never looked to see what it’s all about. Stephan Kinsella has studied AEs, applied it to his own work and even developed the thought process further. Here, he gives a lengthy explanation that can serve as your doorway into the subject. Stephan is an attorney in Houston, director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, and editor of Libertarian Papers. The A Priori of Argumentation Longer Hoppe Video  Stephan’s Website A Concise Guide to Argumentation Ethics Indiegogo for The Monopoly on Violence Pete’s Patreon Pete’s Bitbacker Pete’s Books on Amazon Pete’s Books Available for Crypto Pete on Facebook Pete on Twitter See also: “Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights,” in The Dialectics of Liberty (Lexington Books, 2019) Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics and Its Critics, StephanKinsella.com (Aug. 11, 2015) Lecture 3 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “The Social Theory of Hoppe” (slides here) Lecture 2 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society” (slides here) The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory, StephanKinsella.com (March 22, 2016) Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan, Anti-state.com (Sept. 19, 2002) “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide,” Mises Daily (May 27, 2011)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 272. This is my appearance on the Ernie Hancock “Declare your Independence” show for Aug. 21 (Hour 2).  We discussed defamation law and reputation rights, and some related matters. Grok shownotes: Introduction and Anti-IP Stance The interview begins with host Ernie Hancock introducing Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney and author of "Against Intellectual Property," discussing how his practice led him to oppose IP laws (2:00). Kinsella explains IP justifications as utilitarian market failure arguments, noting patents' temporary nature contradicts true property rights, lasting 17 years versus copyrights' 100+ years (3:00). He critiques government-granted monopolies that stifle innovation, sharing how libertarian views shifted over a decade to recognize IP's disadvantages (4:00). The conversation ties into "Letters of Captain Mark," focusing on "pattern monopolies" as intellectual colonization by the state and privateers (4:52). Reputation and Its Relation to IP Transitioning to reputation, Kinsella links it to IP categories like trademarks, which protect brand value built on reputation, and defamation laws, akin to libel (written) and slander (spoken), allowing suits for false harmful statements (7:00-9:00). He argues reputation isn't owned like physical property but exists in others' minds, per Rothbard, rejecting value-based rights (9:00). After a break featuring a Captain Mark letter on IP (10:00), discussion resumes on reputation residing in evaluators' minds, not enforceable via law, as negative campaigning or lies aren't crimes unless violating physical integrity (11:00-12:00). Kinsella notes his anti-IP writings from 1995, still practicing defensively (12:00-13:00). Practical Reputation Systems and Identification Post-break, topics shift to IP lobbying by Hollywood, music, and pharma industries, with treaties like TPP exporting U.S. standards (14:00-16:00). Reputation examples include eBay, Uber ratings as crowdsourced, privately handled without government (18:00-20:00). Hancock explores pirate ship reputation via crew votes on rehiring, emphasizing blockchain, biometrics for unique ID despite aliases (21:00-23:00). Davi shares a name confusion anecdote, stressing verification for bona fides (23:00). Kinsella agrees on private mechanisms, noting guilds or social media for reputation without state intervention (24:00-25:00). Private ID, Privacy, and Libertarian Principles Fundamentals of private ID are debated, akin to historical letters of reference, ruined by defamation threats chilling employer feedback (26:00-28:00). Kinsella views identity as knowledge problem, solvable via insurance requiring DNA or biometrics (28:00-29:00). Facial recognition isn't libertarian violation if private, as no trespass occurs; anonymity costs credibility, like pseudonyms reducing trust (30:00-32:00). Discussion covers nuisance laws not applying to "photons" from unsightly properties, blurring faces as IP distortion (36:00-38:00). Evading IP via torrenting, 3D printing foreseen; blue check marks as private verification (39:00-41:00). Ends with guild models co-opted by state, market for private credentials (41:00-43:00), wrapping at farewell (52:00). https://youtu.be/eIpV7mBfHWc Related links: Rothbard, Knowledge, True and False Block, Defending the Undefendable, ch. 7 "The Slanderer and Libeler" David Kelley vs. Nat Hentoff on Libel, Youtube Kinsella, Reply to Van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 18, no. 2 (Spring 2004) Initial Youtube transcript as cleaned up by Grok (Grok may have used the wrong names in places, I have not checked yet): [0:00] [Ernie Hancock]: And now live from the studios of Freedom's Phoenix, Ernest Hancock. Believe me when I say we have a difficult time ahead of us. But if we are to be prepared for it, we must first shed our fear of it. I stand here without fear because I remember. I remember that I am here not because of the path that lies before me, but because of the path that lies behind me. I remember that for 100 years we have fought these machines. And after a century of war, I remember that which matters most. We are still here. Let us make them remember we are not afraid. [1:00] [Ernie Hancock]: I'm here and declare your independence with me, Ernie Hancock. Davi Barker sitting in, last day before he has to head off tomorrow. We might do a little bit of show tomorrow. Stephan Kinsella, Donna's getting him on the line now. He had the time wrong, so we'll get him on in just a second here. She's calling him now. Now, Davi and I are going to be talking about reputation with Stephan Kinsella. Now, the one thing, we're done with Captain Kid. I was thinking, the Emancipation, could we make him an airship? Can we make the Emancipation an airship? [Davi Barker]: Oh, yeah. He needs a ship. I'm just wondering, like in the pirate cove where we have the shiny badges and the Freedom's Phoenix airship. You want to put him in there? [Ernie Hancock]: Well, I was thinking that we do a graphic. I don't really want to show his face. It'd be like you're looking at him from behind, like directing something, like pointing a sword at his ship there, and that'd be the graphic or something. [Davi Barker]: Yeah, I guess we got to decide what kind of ship it is. [2:00] [Ernie Hancock]: Yeah, it needs to be an airship. I got to go rescue. I was thinking of flarecraft, but then you can't get in land lovers and go rescue and stuff. So, we'll talk about that. We got Stephan Kinsella. I got you there, Stephan? [Stephan Kinsella]: You got me, Ernie. [Ernie Hancock]: There we go. Okay, we got that taken care of. Yeah. All right. This is what I'm gonna let Davi go ahead and do this because let's go ahead and introduce. I'll introduce Stephan and then we'll get right into the meat because there's a lot to talk about. We got a short time here. Stephan Kinsella is a libertarian writer and registered patent attorney. Mr. Kinsella is a leading anti-intellectual property libertarian theorist, author of "Against Intellectual Property." Now, this is, you know, go ahead and give your bona fides a little. A patent attorney. How did you get to be a patent attorney and be anti-IP? Did you see what was happening? What's up? [3:00] [Stephan Kinsella]: Well, that's exactly how I started practicing patent law, realized, started understanding the system, realized how horrible it is and that it can't be justified. [Ernie Hancock]: Well, what was their justification? You know, nobody will make anything unless they get to say it's theirs forever and always. I mean, what was their rationale? [Stephan Kinsella]: Yeah, that's... there's a bunch of justifications and I had heard them and none of them made sense to me because they just didn't have the type of rigorous argument for them like other property rights do. Because they expire after a certain while. What kind of property right is temporary? Right? Patents last about 17 years and copyright lasts about 100-plus years, but they're temporary. What kind of real property right is temporary? And then the arguments were utilitarian. They were basically evidence-based. They were saying that there's going to be an underproduction of innovation and creative works in a free society because the market will basically fail. [4:00] [Stephan Kinsella]: So we need to come in with the government and give these patent and copyright monopoly privilege grants to people to protect them from competition so it's easier for them to make money so they produce more works. So it's kind of a market failure argument which I never bought that either. [Ernie Hancock]: Yeah, I'm... you know, I think it was like '09, '10, '11 around in there that we first came across you, had you on, and there were a lot of libertarians like, "Hey man, I make this and I do a book and I got..." and "Stephan's wrong." And then as a decade has passed, they're going, "Nah, Stephan might be right." It's becoming more and more common to see the disadvantages of intellectual property. Now what we're focusing on is reputation. There is a letters of Captain Mark. I don't know if you've read any of them. Remember we did a one on intellectual property. We called it pattern monopoly, you know. So that was a good letter. And then now we're looking at reputation as first off, you know, whatever you're saying who owns what and who... you need to know who is, you know, and of course they want it to be the government facial recognition of your permanent record of we know everything and here's your search terms. [5:00] [Ernie Hancock]: But I would like to, as a pirate captain or an employer, you know, the first thing I want to know, I don't care how many 15 billion names that you use. I just want to know who you are. I can call you whatever you want, but I want to know who this person is that I'm hiring or doing business with or what. And we have reputation as being a big thing now in like eBay. You're selling stuff, you're offering things, somebody wants to know your bona fides kind of deal, but I just don't need the government to tell me you're certified for something. I'd rather go and have the people tell me. But when we went through this, this is what we thought of you. And Donna had already had you scheduled for today, a couple days. I'm going, "Woo, serendipitous." I'm going, "This is working out great." Because what Davi did, tell them what you did and how you were looking for this and came across them. [6:00] [Davi Barker]: Yeah, this is kind of like a spooky feature of Google search results. I was looking for, like what we always do with these letters is who are the best writers on this subject, right? Who can we grab like the best material and use that to boil down... steal their IP? How we pirate their IP so that we can produce a better letter? No. So,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 271. This is my appearance on Let's Talk ETC! #87 (June 24, 2019), with host Dr. Christian Seberino. From his shownotes: Stephan Kinsella is a Houston patent lawyer and libertarian advocate. He joins me for an informative discussion about libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism and related blockchain legal issues. Topics addressed include how blockchain technologies impact privacy, tax collection, copyrights, patents, obscenity laws and more.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 270. This is my second appearance on The Corbett Report (Ep. 1453, 25 June 2019), with host James Corbett (from Japan): Interview 1453 – Stephan Kinsella on Law Without the State Stephan Kinsella joins us today to discuss the concept of law without the state. Is law and order possible without a state? What would that look like? And just what is “the law,” anyway? Find out more in this fascinating conversation on law, history, philosophy and anarchy. Related: What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist, LewRockwell.com (Jan. 20, 2004) Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach (Feb. 3, 2009) Hoppe, Anarcho-Capitalism: An annotated bibliography, LewRockwell.com, December 31, 2001 KOL144 | Corbett Report Radio (2012)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 269. My old friend Jack Criss, former libertarian AM radio talk show host from the 1980s and now a business journalist and publisher, throws his hat into the podcast ring. He interviewed me today. His episode page is here.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 268. I was a guest on Episode 39 of the excellent podcast The Bob Murphy Show, discussing "Law Without the State, and the Illegitimacy of IP (Intellectual Property)". A few people have told me this particular discussion of IP was one of my best--thorough and systematic. No doubt aided by Bob's excellent prompting, questions, and guidance. Update: Someone on the Youtube comments asked me what essay we were discussing in this talk. I don't think we were talking about any particular article, but I would say my best, most recent and comprehensive piece is my most recent: The Problem with Intellectual Property (2025). Other relevant pieces: A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP Against Intellectual Property (2001/2008) Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society (2013/2023)  Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward (2023) You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (2023) Stephan Kinsella, ed., The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (2023) Bob and I had planned to also discuss argumentation ethics, but the discussion of IP ran longer than we expected so we'll save AE for next time. [Update: KOL278 | Bob Murphy Show: Debating Hans Hoppe’s “Argumentation Ethics”.] From Bob's show notes: Bob talks with Stephan Kinsella about the basis of libertarian law, and how we could have justice without a coercive State. They then discuss Stephan’s pathbreaking work making the case that property must be in tangible things, rendering “intellectual property” an incoherent and dangerous concept. GROK shownote summary: In this episode of the Bob Murphy Show (Episode 39), recorded in June 2019, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella discusses "Law Without the State, and the Illegitimacy of IP (Intellectual Property)" with host Bob Murphy, delivering a thorough critique of intellectual property laws rooted in Austrian economics and libertarian principles (0:00-10:00). Kinsella begins by outlining the basis of libertarian law, emphasizing that property rights apply only to scarce, rivalrous resources like physical objects, not non-scarce ideas, and argues that a stateless society could achieve justice through private law mechanisms like contracts and arbitration (10:01-25:00). He then transitions to IP, asserting that patents and copyrights are state-granted monopolies that violate property rights by restricting how individuals use their own resources, using examples like a patented mousetrap to illustrate this infringement (25:01-40:00). Kinsella’s discussion, praised for its clarity and systematic approach, leverages Murphy’s probing questions to highlight IP’s philosophical and practical flaws. Kinsella further explores IP’s economic harms, such as distorted research and high litigation costs, citing studies that show no net innovation benefits, and contrasts these with IP-free industries like open-source software that thrive on competition (40:01-55:00). He addresses common pro-IP arguments, including utilitarian claims and creation-based ownership, arguing that creation transforms owned resources, not ideas, and dismisses contractual IP schemes as ineffective against third parties (55:01-1:10:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella responds to Murphy’s questions on transitioning to a stateless legal system, the role of reputation in private law, and IP’s impact on pharmaceuticals, reinforcing his call for IP’s abolition to foster a free market of ideas (1:10:01-1:33:05). The conversation, intended to include argumentation ethics but focused solely on IP due to time, concludes with Kinsella urging libertarians to reject IP as a statist distortion, aligning with his broader vision of decentralized justice (1:33:06-1:33:05). This episode is a compelling exploration of libertarian law and IP’s illegitimacy, ideal for those seeking a principled critique. Youtube Transcript and Detailed Grok summary below. https://youtu.be/G5MIdkXeufY Grok summary: Summary of The Bob Murphy Show Episode 39 Introduction and Background 0:00 Bob Murphy introduces episode 39 of The Bob Murphy Show, featuring an interview with Stephan Kinsella, a practicing patent attorney, libertarian writer, speaker, director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, and editor of Libertarian Papers. Murphy highlights their long acquaintance through Mises Institute events and online debates, particularly their disagreement on Hans Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, which they did not discuss due to time constraints. Instead, the conversation focused on private law and Kinsella’s influential work on intellectual property (IP), with plans to revisit their argumentation ethics dispute in a future episode. Personal Journey to Libertarianism 5:34 Stephan Kinsella shares his journey to becoming a prominent libertarian legal theorist. Originally from Louisiana, he became interested in libertarianism in high school after reading Ayn Rand, deepening his interest in college and law school. By the start of law school, he identified as an anarcho-capitalist, influenced by Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe. His education as an electrical engineer and later as a lawyer at LSU, which uniquely teaches both Roman and common law, shaped his analytical approach to libertarian issues, despite having no libertarian professors and learning primarily through self-directed reading and correspondence with figures like David Kelley. Legal Systems: Common Law vs. Civil Law 20:03 Stephan Kinsella explains the distinction between common law and civil law systems. He describes Roman law as a case-based system, developed through disputes and codified in Justinian’s Institutes, similar to the English common law, which evolved through judicial precedents. In Europe, Roman law was later codified into civil codes, like Napoleon’s, making legislation the primary legal source, whereas English common law relied on judicial decisions with occasional parliamentary statutes. Kinsella notes that modern legal systems in both Europe and the U.S. blend legislation and common law, but he argues that a libertarian case law system, driven by real disputes and precedent, aligns better with justice than legislative edicts, which often lack consistency with prior law or justice principles. Anarcho-Capitalism and the Role of the State 40:36 Stephan Kinsella addresses critics who dismiss anarcho-capitalism as impractical, arguing that the state’s inherent aggression makes it unjust, regardless of its persistence. He compares objections like “who will build the roads?” to questioning the abolition of slavery by asking “who will pick the cotton?”—practical concerns that don’t negate moral arguments. Kinsella asserts that anarchism is about opposing aggression and recognizing the state’s criminal nature. He respects minarchist arguments that a minimal state might reduce aggression compared to anarchy but finds them unconvincing, emphasizing that advocating for justice doesn’t require predicting a crime-free society, just as opposing murder doesn’t assume its elimination. Intellectual Property Critique 47:54 Stephan Kinsella discusses his seminal work opposing intellectual property, arguing that IP laws (patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets) are incoherent and unjust. He explains that property rights apply to scarce, tangible resources to resolve conflicts, not to non-scarce ideas, which can be infinitely shared without depriving the originator. IP laws, he contends, grant monopolies that restrict others’ use of their own property (e.g., a factory or printing press), effectively transferring property rights without consent. Kinsella traces IP’s historical roots to state-granted privileges, like patents from monarchs and copyrights from censorship-driven publishing monopolies, which persist due to special interests and propaganda labeling them as “property.” He argues that IP stifles innovation and free speech, citing examples like lawsuits over yoga moves or book bans. Practical Implications and Incentives 1:13:40 Stephan Kinsella elaborates on why IP is not only unjust but also impractical, using the music industry as an example. He notes that artists already give away music to build recognition, making money through tours or merchandise, suggesting that IP laws primarily benefit large record labels, not individual creators. He likens IP to arbitrary restrictions, like suing over podcast formats or scientific formulas, which would hinder progress. Kinsella argues that the fear of “unbridled competition” drives IP support, as it slows replication of easily copied goods (e.g., books or drugs), but empirical evidence shows IP doesn’t enhance innovation. He hopes technologies like 3D printing will render IP laws obsolete by enabling decentralized production. Listener Questions and Future Projects 1:30:35 Stephan Kinsella answers listener questions, sharing favorite fiction books (e.g., Stephen R. Donaldson’s Chronicles of Thomas Covenant), reflecting on his legal career (no horror stories, though he dislikes patent prosecution’s necessity), and clarifying his defensive patent practice, where patents are used to counter lawsuits rather than initiate them. He disagrees with Hoppe on minor points, like argumentation ethics’ terminology and fractional reserve banking’s inherent fraudulence. On the Libertarian Party, he supports its goals but focuses on theoretical work, hoping to add an anti-IP plank. Kinsella, an atheist, respects religious beliefs but critiques state-worshipping secularism. He mentions upcoming books, including “Copy This Book” on IP, a chapter in “Dialectics of Liberty,” and a legal reference on international investment law.   GROK DETAILED SUMMARY: Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview Stephan Kinsella’s KOL268 podcast, recorded on June 9, 2019,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 267. I was a guest today on Sal Mayweather's "The Agora" podcast, ep. 48 (Soundcloud version below). From his shownotes: We discussed Craig's copyright application of the Bitcoin White Paper and whether they lend any credence to his claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto. Does a copyright application imply that CSW is actually Satoshi? Stephan also breaks down some of the torts Craig has filed against against various individuals who have said he isn't Satoshi and/or referred to him as a fraud. Can he use the courts to force individuals to recognize him as Satoshi? This is a great opportunity to learn the standard libertarian position on IP, the difference between a copyright and a patent & how it all applies to current crypto-community from the world's leading expert!

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 266. This is my appearance in Episode 36 of the Did You Know Crypto Podcast, with host Dustin. We talked "about the possibility of using patents as an attack vector on Bitcoin." As Dustin summarized in his show notes: Stephan and I talk about… What is a Patent? Differences in EU/US & China Why is it so “hallowed” Open Source Software and patents What is a “Patent Troll” Craig Wright’s patents Can Bitcoin developers be sued? https://youtu.be/_c2NxObY-O0 NOTES: Stephan on Twitter Stephan’s website History of Patents Paris Convention Patent cooperation treaty Current (2019) US /China Tarriff dispute KOL234 | Vin Armani Show: Live from London: Kinsella vs. Craig Wright on Intellectual Property KOL267 | Sal the Agorist Interview: Bitcoin, Copyright, Craig Wright Tom Woods w/Stephan Kinsella – Ep 225 “Patents & Liberty” Tom Woods w/Stephan Kinsella – “Libertarianism & Intellectual Property” Article on Nchain Hiring Patent Lawyer