Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 235. This is a short video produced by the Federalist Society (Feb. 6, 2018), featuring me and IP law professor Kristen Osenga (I had met Osenga previously, as a co-panelist at an IP panel at NYU School of Law in 2011). I was pleasantly surprised that the Federalist Society was willing to give the anti-IP side a voice—more on this below. To produce this video, Osenga and I each spoke separately, before a green screen, in studios in our own cities, for about 30 minutes. The editing that boiled this down to about 5 minutes total was superbly done. see also James Stern: Is Intellectual Property Actually Property? [Federalist Society No. 86 LECTURE] Transcript below. From the Federalist Society's shownotes on their Facebook post: Why does the government protect patents, copyrights, and trademarks? Should it? Kristen Osenga and Stephan Kinsella explore the concept of intellectual property and debate its effect on society as a whole. Kristen Osenga, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, and Stephan Kinsella, author of Against Intellectual Property, explore the concept of intellectual property and debate its effect on society as a whole. Differing Views: Libertarianism.org: Libertarian Views of Intellectual Property A 21st Century Copyright Office: The Conservative Case for Reform Mises Institute: The Case Against IP Law and Liberty: Why Intellectual Property Rights? A Lockean Justification The Constitutional Foundations of Intellectual Property Harvard Law: Theories of Intellectual Property I was pleasantly surprised that the Federalist Society was willing to give the anti-IP side a voice, given that many libertarian-related groups either outright favor IP or refuse to condemn it or to allow abolitionist voices. Since the dawn of the Internet in the mid-90s, the effects of patent and especially copyright law have become magnified and more noticeable. Thus more libertarians began to direct their attention to this issue. Gradually, scholarship emerged and the consensus began to shift over the last couple decades from an inchoate Randian pro-IP attitude, and/or apathy, to a interest in and opposition to IP law. It is safe to say that most thinking libertarians, most Austrians, anarchists, and left-libertarians, are now predominately opposed to IP.  (See “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism,” “The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism”, “The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism”.) Accordingly, many libertarian groups are now explicitly anti-IP or at least are willing to host speakers and writers with this view, such as: the Mises Institute, and various Mises Institutes around the world (Sweden, Brasil, UK, etc.); the  Property and Freedom Society; and others, like the IEA (see Stephen Davies' Intellectual Property Rights: Yay or Nay); the Adam Smith Forum-Russia, which had me present a sweeping case for IP abolition; and the Adam Smith Institute in London, which also has featured strong voices in opposition to IP (Adam Smith Institute: Do not feed the patent troll; Intellectual property: an unnecessary evil). FEE has featured my work and that of other IP abolitionists, like Sheldon Richman. Even the Mercatus Center has promoted strong IP reform, although not outright abolition (see, e.g., Tom Bell, What is Intellectual Privilege?). And, I've been invited to speak against IP in a number of fora, podcasts, and radio shows—PorcFest, Libertopia, Students for Liberty, FreeTalkLive, and so on. Even John Stossel's Fox show featured me and David Koepsell arguing the abolitionist side. So. This is good progress, and parallels the increasing interest in IP by libertarians and their increasing opposition to this type of law. But not all libertarian groups, sadly, recognize IP for the unjust state institution that it is. The Libertarian Party, for example, shamefully takes no stance on IP in its platform. This would be like failing to oppose chattel slavery, conscription, or the drug war in a society where these things were going on. The Cato Institute usually presents pro-IP speakers or those who talk about "reform" (see my post Disinvited From Cato). The Independent Institute has featured the pro-IP work of William Shughart (see Independent Institute on The “Benefits” of Intellectual Property Protection). Other so-called free market groups have also been bad on IP: Austrian Economics Center, Hayek Institute, Other Liberal Groups Come Out for Stronger Intellectual Property Protection. The tech-libertarian groups, like EFF, fulminate against "junk" patents and patent trolls but do not oppose IP itself. Even the tech-libertarian defenders of poor Aaron Swartz, driven to suicide by the threat of draconian copyright criminal penalties, shamefully, disgustingly admitted that he of course needed "some punishment."  And of course all the Objectivist groups are rabidly for IP (see e.g. work by Adam Mossoff). As for the Federalist Society—I did participate in an IP debate at a local chapter (Federalist Society IP Debate (Ohio State)), and their Intellectual Property Practice Group Newsletter did reprint one of my early short articles against IP (Is Intellectual Property Legitimate? , vol. 3, Issue 3 (Winter 2000)). But overall the Federalist Society has presented basically the pro-IP side (More defenses of IP by the Federalist Society; Federalist Society Panel: Undermining or Preserving Property Rights? The New Administrative Patents). I pestered them over years to include more balanced treatment in their bibliography, to no avail (Anti-IP Material Needed in the IP Section of the Federalist Society’s “Conservative & Libertarian Legal Scholarship: Annotated Bibliography”). So I'm very pleased they finally chose to present the anti-IP side alongside the conventional arguments. TRANSCRIPT Intellectual Property: A First Principles Debate Stephan Kinsella and Kristen Osenga Federalist Society POLICYbrief Feb. 6, 2018 00:00:01 KRISTEN OSENGA: Intellectual property, or IP, are rights that are granted by the government to encourage innovation and creativity. 00:00:09 STEPHAN KINSELLA: The term was originated to come up with a defense of certain types of monopoly privileges, primarily patent and copyright law, which had existed for a few centuries in the West.  Intellectual property is not property in the same sense as normal property rights because normal property rights are designed to protect scarce resources, things in the world that we could have a conflict over.  This includes our bodies and other resources in the world—tangible, material objects.  Property rights arise as a social mechanism to allow us to use these resources cooperatively and peacefully and productively with each other.  But intellectual property covers ideas and non-scarce resources, patterns which can be infinitely copied and multiplied. 00:01:00 KRISTEN OSENGA: One of the benefits of having property is the ability to keep other people out.  I can let people that I don’t want to come to my house know that they can’t be there.  And patents and copyright provide the same sort of, what’s known as, exclusive rights that private property does that you can say you can’t trespass on my invention, and you can’t copy my new creative work.  So the difficulty when we look at intellectual property as property is how do we know where the boundaries are.  But as far as what are our rights, the idea that we can keep people out—that’s exactly like physical property. 00:01:36 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Legally, the proper way to understand intellectual property rights is a negative servitude or a negative easement, and if you understand what a negative easement is, it gives the holder of that easement a right to prevent the owner of existing property to use it the way he sees fit.  And these are perfectly legitimate if they’re granted voluntarily like a restrictive covenant in a neighborhood.  But in patent and copyright, the government grants these monopoly privileges to holders of these ideal rights, and it allows them to stop other people from using their bodies or their other property as they see fit. 00:02:09 KRISTEN OSENGA: There’s a number of philosophical justifications for intellectual property, but one of the clear ones is John Locke’s principle, the idea that if you put your effort and mix it with nature, you should get property rights in a resulting object.  If you take a tree and turn it into a barrel, the barrel should be yours, and that’s the same idea with intellectual property. 00:02:33 One of the things intellectual property does is it allows you to get exclusive rights on what you invent.  And with those exclusive rights, you can either keep other people from doing it and manufacture the invention yourself, or you can license it to a patent licensing firm.  The inventor who has spent a lot of time and money in the uncertain activity of inventing can recoup some of those costs and some of those expenses. 00:03:00 STEPHAN KINSELLA: So the question is not whether a given policy or law incentivizes innovation.  The purpose of law is to protect property rights.  We have to recognize that in today’s world, even though we have copyright law, piracy is rampant. 00:03:13 In today’s 2017, artists have to deal with the fact of copyright piracy, and they have to come up with business models to work around that.  But then the question is, absent patent and copyright law, what protections would they have?  Well, first of all, they have property rights like we all do.  They have the right to own their own studio or their own printing press or their own machine shop and make inventions.  They have the right to engage in commerce and sell their goods.  You can sell tickets at a concert.  You can sell a CD if you want to.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 234. This is a debate on IP between me and a noted Bitcoin expert, Craig Wright, hosted and moderated by the Vin Armani show. Transcript below along with Grok shownotes. Debating Wright I was in London to attend the inaugural 2018 meeting of Mises UK and to hang with my boys Lee Iglody, Jeff Barr, Doug French, and Hans Hoppe, and had challenged Wright to a debate during a few twitter run-ins (still on-going); I accepted and since I happened to be in London, Wright set it up and we did it at a local studio, with Armani moderating from Vegas. After the debate Further comments appear on my Facebook post and also on the Youtube post (below). Update [7/17/19]: I had my buddies Jeff Barr and Doug French in the room watching, and after the debate, invited Craig to drinks in the hotel bar. We had an interesting, if a bit bizarre and intense, discussion for an hour or so. But in the ensuing weeks, things between us devolved on Twitter. Wright had promised to produce "proof" of patents stimulating innovation during the debate, and apparently, like with many of his promises to produce something, never came through. I pointed that out on Twitter and he eventually ended up blocking me, as well as the podcast's host, Vin Armani, who at the time was, with Wright, a fellow BCH advocate (Vin is still a BCHer but Craig has split off again with his BSV). Of course, in the meantime, Wright has amped up his risible claims to be Satoshi and has been involved in a number of controversial issues in the bitcoin/crypto community. What a character. Also: during the debate I referred to him as Dr. Wright, since he claims to have several PhDs, but now I am not sure he has any legitimate PhDs, other perhaps than one in "theology", so I should not have called him "Dr." That was too deferential. On the other hand, he did pay for the venue and related costs, so I was being polite. Grok Summary The debate on intellectual property (IP) law, hosted by Vin Armani on January 27, 2018, featured Stephan Kinsella arguing against the resolution that IP is a legitimate and useful institution for blockchain and cryptocurrency, while Craig Wright defended it. In his opening, Wright emphasized the scarcity of good ideas and their implementation, arguing that IP protects individual creators' rights more fundamentally than homesteading physical land, as ideas are created from nothing. He cited natural experiments in countries like India, where reintroducing IP laws allegedly led to a 60% increase in patents by startups, not large companies. Wright contrasted IP with alternatives like trade secrets, using the ZeniMax vs. Oculus case to illustrate how trade secrets create market uncertainty and slow innovation, while patents provide disclosure and clarity. He framed opposition to IP as "intellectual communism," forcing creators to share against their will. Kinsella, in his opening, defined IP as government-granted monopolies (patents for inventions, copyrights for artistic works, plus trademarks and trade secrets) that infringe on genuine property rights in scarce, rivalrous resources. He argued that property rights arise from homesteading or contract to resolve conflicts over physical goods, not ideas, which are non-rivalrous and essential to action but not ownable. Kinsella rejected creation as a source of ownership, noting that transforming owned resources (e.g., iron into a horseshoe) creates wealth, not new rights. He claimed IP hinders innovation, distorts culture, and censors speech, prioritizing justice over utilitarian goals like spurring creativity. In response to questions on legitimacy, Kinsella expanded that IP is unethical and un-libertarian, as it transfers property rights without consent, akin to theft or slavery. He criticized IP's arbitrary expiration (e.g., 17 years for patents) as evidence it's not true property, and argued it violates free speech by restricting expression, such as banning sequels or hyperlinks to content. Empirically, he asserted no clear proof IP boosts innovation net of its costs (e.g., patent thickets stifling research), citing economists Boldrin and Levine's work showing patents correlate with filings but not actual productivity gains. Kinsella highlighted his experience as a patent attorney, observing inventions arise from market needs, not IP incentives. Wright rebutted by calling Kinsella's arguments circular and false, insisting IP aligns with Lockean rights and societal agreements. He claimed over 2,000 studies from natural experiments (e.g., IP reductions in India and China leading to innovation drops, followed by surges upon reinstatement) support IP's benefits for small innovators. Wright traced IP to ancient precedents like Roman judicial law and medieval letters patent, rejecting the idea it's a modern monopoly. He argued creators have rights to control their work, and without IP, theft via trade secrets proliferates, as in Google Waymo cases, creating uncertainty that deters investment. On utility, Wright explained IP's mechanism: patents reduce uncertainty by disclosing inventions publicly, enabling due diligence for investors and preventing costly secret thefts, unlike trade secrets that led to billion-dollar disputes (e.g., Oculus). He advocated updating outdated IP models but insisted communities can agree on rules, aligning with individual choice. In blockchain, Wright argued IP prevents fragmentation (e.g., Bitcoin splits), fosters certainty for scaling against incumbents like Visa, and protects costly innovations his company developed, countering claims that open-source drove crypto growth. Kinsella rebutted Wright's evidence as anecdotal, pointing to his compilation of studies showing IP's net harm, including trillions in lost innovation. He labeled IP socialist for interfering with private property, per Hoppe's definition, and dismissed historical precedents as mercantilist monopolies antithetical to free markets. On free speech, Kinsella cited cases like the banned Catcher in the Rye sequel, Nosferatu film destruction, Aaron Swartz's suicide amid copyright charges, and threats against yoga poses or tattoos as direct censorship. He argued trademark creates "reputation rights" implying ownership over others' thoughts, while trade secrets unjustly target third parties. In closings, Wright defended IP against misrepresentations, clarifying Swartz's case involved physical trespass (not just copyright) and the Apple iPhone incident as theft by finding, both violating physical property. He promised to compile real-world studies countering Kinsella's "computer models," emphasizing human action over simulations. Kinsella reiterated IP's injustice, burdening proponents to justify it amid historical injustices like slavery. He agreed information needn't be free but opposed restricting learned knowledge, urging libertarians to favor competition and abolish IP for true free markets. Wright's arguments lack coherence and systematic structure, often jumping between philosophical claims (e.g., ideas as scarcer than land), empirical assertions (e.g., Indian patent surges), and historical anecdotes without clear linkages or definitions. His rebuttals frequently digress into unrelated critiques (e.g., equating Swartz's actions to house-breaking) or unsubstantiated boasts (e.g., "over 2,000 studies" without citations), making the case feel scattershot rather than logically progressive. While he invokes libertarian concepts like individual rights and anti-communism, the arguments are not consistently backed by verifiable evidence; claims rely on vague "natural experiments" or personal company experiences, ignoring counter-studies Kinsella references. This contrasts with Kinsella's methodical breakdown of property theory and empirical critiques. Furthermore, Wright's positions are inconsistent with core libertarian private property rights, which emphasize non-aggression and ownership of scarce resources without state intervention. By advocating state-enforced IP monopolies (e.g., patents in blockchain to prevent "fragmentation"), Wright endorses government grants that restrict others' use of their own property—precisely the interference libertarians like Rothbard and Hoppe decry as socialist. His dismissal of open-source success in crypto as suboptimal ignores libertarian preferences for voluntary agreements over coerced disclosure, and his creation-from-nothing rationale contradicts Lockean homesteading, which ties rights to mixing labor with unowned resources, not ideas. Overall, Wright's defense prioritizes utilitarian outcomes over principled non-initiation of force, undermining libertarian consistency. Youtube (with captions): https://youtu.be/5ckcdnD9lFw Original Youtube (which contains a large number of comments; see below):  ❧ TRANSCRIPT Intellectual Property Debate: Stephan Kinsella vs. Craig Wright Stephan Kinsella, Craig Wright, and Vin Armani Vin Armani Show, London and Las Vegas, Jan. 27, 2018 00:00:00 VIN ARMANI: Welcome everyone to today’s debate.  We are debating intellectual property.  The two opponents are Stephan Kinsella and Craig Wright.  Stephan Kinsella is an attorney in Houston, director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom and editor of Libertarian Papers.  He is one of the foremost libertarian experts on intellectual property. 00:00:23 And Dr. Craig Wright is an inventor, computer scientist, and businessman who is one of the earliest minds behind Bitcoin.  He’s the chief scientist at nChain research and development company involved in Bitcoin and blockchain technologies.  So today what we are going to be debating is the following resolution resolved.  Intellectual property law is a legitimate and useful institution that belongs in the emerging global sphere of blockchain technology and cryptocurrency. 00:00:54 Craig Wright will be arguing for the resolution,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 233. This is my appearance on the Jan. 9, 2018 episode of the Mises UK Podcast, with host Andy Duncan. From his shownotes: On the fourth episode of the MisesUK.Org Podcast, Andy Duncan discusses with Stephan Kinsella the concept, theory, and practice of Bitcoin ownership, amongst other topics, which include the use of Bitcoin as money, the comparison between gold and Bitcoin, and the possible collapse of states everywhere due to the current monetary revolution which states may have been too slow to respond to, for the sake of their own existence. Youtube version: Related material: KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) What do you legally “own” with Bitcoin? Posted on November 23, 2018 by prestonbyrne -- see my comments 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 See other links at KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) My facebook post discussing ownership of Bitcoin Tom Bell: Copyright Erodes Property? 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 KOL249 | WCN’s Max Hillebrand: Intellectual Property and Who Owns Bitcoin

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 232. This is my appearance on Keith Knight's Youtube show "Don't Tread on Anyone" (Dec. 18, 2017), discussing a hodge-podge of issues such as the fundamentals of libertarianism, why scarcity is an important concept, Hoppe's greatest contributions, and so on. Youtube embedded below.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 231. This is my appearance on Let's Talk ETC! (Ethereum Classic) (Dec. 8, 2017), discussing the referenced topics. The audience is not really a libertarian one so I explained different approaches to libertarianism and some of my thoughts about libertarian activism, the prospects of bitcoin and other technology possibly aiding in the fight for human liberty and the battle against the state, and so on. The host was very good, the discussion very civil, and the audio quality is pretty good. Transcript below. Youtube: https://youtu.be/B4k9Wv7obWA Original Youtube: TRANSCRIPT Let’s Talk Ethereum—Libertarianism, Anarcho-Capitalism & Blockchains Stephan Kinsella and Christian Seberino Let's Talk ETC! (Ethereum Classic) podcast, Dec. 8, 2017   00:00:05 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: Hello and welcome to another edition of Let’s Talk ETC.  I’m your host, Christian Seberino.  And today I have a special guest with me, Stephen Kinzella.  Did I pronounce your name correctly? 00:00:20 STEPHAN KINSELLA: No, Stephen Kinsella, but that’s close enough. 00:00:24 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: Okay, Stephen Kinsella.  And so I think you'll agree he's a will be an interesting guest for us.  He is – let me read part of his Wikipedia page.  So Stephan Kinsella is an American intellectual property lawyer, author and deontological anarcho-capitalist.  He attended Louisiana State University where he earned a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in electrical engineering.  So he does have knowledge definitely of technical aspects and a Juris Doctor from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center, and he also obtained an LL.M. at the University of London. 00:01:11 He was formerly an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, faculty member of the Mises Academy, and he also co-founded the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, C4SIF, of which he is currently the director.  So wow.  Welcome, and congrats on that very impressive resume. 00:01:37 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Thank you very much. 00:01:39 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: So the reason I thought it would be interesting to have you on the show, and I think the audience would agree – so a lot of people get into blockchain technology and Ethereum Classic, which is one of the main focuses of the show, because they have libertarian leanings.  That's not a requirement, but I do notice it attracts a lot of those people.  And they were all – or most of us are technically minded, and so a lot of times people will say things and I'll wonder, well, is what you're saying really backed up by the people that know about the law and economy more than developers? 00:02:26 Would they agree with the things people are saying?  And so that's why I think you're a very helpful guest because you bring that that side of things.  We don't usually discuss things with lawyers and people that know so much about the economy.  So why don't we – why don’t you start with – why don't you describe from your website what a deontological libertarian is?  Now, when I searched for that on Wikipedia, it came up that it was the same thing as a natural-rights libertarian.  So can you kind of talk about that? 00:03:05 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Sure.  Well, keep in mind that I didn't write that page, so that's someone else's description.  I don't strongly disagree with it, but I think what the person writing that was trying to get at was there are – there’s considered to be two basic types.  Now there are some people that think there are three or more but two basic types of approaches towards, say, ethics.  And to simplify it, they’re empirical/utilitarian and natural rights/deontological. 00:03:40 So the first would be kind of a consequentialist approach, which is basically, we're in favor of rules in society and laws that lead to the greatest benefit for society in general.  And that's sometimes called utilitarianism.  It's an empirical approach that a lot of economists favor, like they try to say, should we adjust the tax code this way?  Should we have this kind of law?  Who’s it going to benefit?  Who’s it going to hurt?  And we sum this up, and we try to do the overall best good for society. 00:04:14 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: All right. 00:04:13 STEPHAN KINSELLA: And then the deontological approach, and by the way, people that are familiar with the philosophical idea of ontology, which is the philosophical study of the types of things that exist, the word sounds similar.  But they actually have nothing to do with each other.  So deontology and ontology have literally nothing to do with each other.  Deontological just means an approach that is more rule or principle-based, and that's why it's more geared towards the natural law.  So the idea is that we're in favor of rules that are right, no matter what the consequences, so that's the kind of classical division. 00:04:55 Now, someone like me, I wouldn't really – I don't actually think there's a division. I think that the rules that are right and good sort of blend with and complement the rules that lead to the best results for society on average.  So I wouldn't really distinguish between the two.  I think people call me a deontological anarchist libertarian because I've written in the tradition of Ayn Rand, who's sort of an Aristotelian natural-rights theorist, and Rothbard, who was in the natural rights tradition. 00:05:27 But I myself have been more influenced by Mises – Ludwig von Mises in economics, who's an Austrian economist, and by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who is a German Austrian economist, who's been influenced by Rothbard and Mises.  But his theory of rights is sort of a blend of consequentialism and the natural rights approach.  So we could get into that if it's interesting, but basically I prefer to view my approach as logical and consistent and principled. 00:06:02 So you talk to other human beings that we live with, the ones that share similar values, basic values like peace, prosperity, cooperation.  And we say, listen, if you apply the rules of economics and logic and consistency and honesty and evidence to these things, what would what would that lead you to conclude?  So if we all are in favor of each other prospering and everyone doing better in life and we have some awareness of the laws of economics, the basic laws of economics, then what kind of laws would we be in favor of?  What kind of legal policies would we be in favor of? 00:06:43 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: Okay, so you want me to answer that?  Okay, so two general classes of answers that I hear to your question is there's the camp that says that we give everybody – we respect everyone's freedom, and we leave people alone.  That's what I think of when I think of libertarianism.  I’m a simple guy.  I think in simple definitions.  That's how I would – your definition was obviously much more sophisticated than mine.  But that's like a broad category.  And then other people seem to want to focus on taking care of people… 00:07:22 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yes. 00:07:23 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: What we would call the socialistic approach perhaps.  And those are kind of the two big answers that I see, and they're always in conflict, maybe not all the time.  But those are the kind of the biggest, two divisions that I see.  Would you agree with that? 00:07:38 STEPHAN KINSELLA: I see.  I think from the perspective that I come from, we don't agree with all these bifurcations exactly because we see that there are loaded presuppositions in the way that these things are framed.  And so it depends upon who or which audience we're speaking to.  But if I'm talking to someone that just is dabbling in this or hasn’t experienced the libertarian perspective on things, then that perspective that you just put out, so we would say that's a false dichotomy that, first of all, there's no conflict between rights, and there's no conflict between the desire to help people and the desire to protect people's individual property rights. 00:08:29 We think that those things go together.  But there is a conflict between the idea of having, say, a legal right to be taken care of and a legal right to your property.  They do run in conflict with each other because – and this goes into what libertarians sometimes emphasize, the distinction between negative and positive rights. 00:08:51 So basically libertarians tend to say that we believe in negative rights and the corresponding negative obligations, which means that you have a right to do whatever you want within your own territory basically, and your own property, your own body, as long as you don't invade someone else's rights, which is sort of what you stated earlier as the kind of rule-of-thumb way of looking at it.  And that can be viewed as a negative right because the only obligation or duty that it imposes upon your neighbors is for them not to do something.  All they have to do is not invade your property.  They have to not hurt you.  They have to not steal from you.  They have to not invade your – so the only burden you impose upon them is to just not do something, to refrain from doing something. 00:09:38 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: I see. 00:09:39 STEPHAN KINSELLA: But if you believe in positive rights, which is the right to be educated, the right to a house, the right to food, these kinds of things, that requires that someone else has to have an obligation or a duty to provide you with it.  So if you have a right to an income, that means other people have the obligation to give that to you.  But that means that you have a right to their property, so there's always a conflict between the right that you have to your property and other people's rights to try to get a piece of it 00:10:11 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: Okay so… 00:10:12 STEPHAN KINSELLA: It becomes positive welfare rights. 00:10:14 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: Okay,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 230. This is my own audio recording of my debate on IP at the Yale Political Union (Facebook) on Tues., Dec. 5, 2017. My opponent was attorney Candice Cook. My initial argument begins at 0:04:40, followed by some Q&A, and my closing argument begins at 1:42:20. I can't say I recommend listening to the comments of others, as none of my arguments were really addressed and the arguments given are pretty incoherent—the arguments for IP were rooted in confused utilitarianism and even the arguments against IP were mostly rooted in anti-property socialistic assumptions. As expected, I lost the debate, by vote of the students, by a vote of about 2:1. Admittedly, it doesn't sound too bad to get 1/3, when not even all libertarians have the right view on IP, but it's worse than that: many of those who voted with me voted against IP for socialistic, anti-property reasons. Everyone is so confused about this topic. I knew this would be the case, I knew it would basically impossible, hopeless, to persuade mainstream left-socialistic types in a short talk of a radical position that rests upon having a sound view of property rights. So I went ahead, giving up hope on the audience, and laid out a systematic argument against IP based the nature of human action, human interaction, and property rights. A systematic, if compressed, argument, that could possibly resonate with some open-minded people someday listening to the recording via this podcast.  Thus, my initial presentation was a very condensed (15-20 minutes) but very fundamental explanation of the nature of property rights and why intellectual property is totally incompatible with property rights. Even though I knew it would be a hard sell with Yale undergrads. As can be heard from the "hissing" (their version of booing) whenever anything pro-private-property or capitalistic was mentioned, and from the comments of some of the student political group leaders, there was a good deal of explicit Marxism and socialism among the student. But it was fun nonetheless and they were very civil and respectful. Video of the debate available here and embedded below. (I spoke on IP before a smaller student group back in 2014—see KOL151 | Yale Speech: Balancing Intellectual Property Rights and Civil Liberties: A Libertarian Perspective.)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 229. This is my appearance on the Ernie Hancock "Declare your Independence" show for Nov. 3, hours 2 and 3. There is a "debate"—more of a discussion really—with libertarian-ish gun-rights author Alan Korwin in the first segment. Grok summary shownotes: [0:00–59:24] In this episode of the Ernest Hancock Show (KOL229, Nov. 3, 2017), host Ernest Hancock facilitates a heated debate on intellectual property (IP), specifically copyright, featuring Stephan Kinsella and Alan Korwin. Kinsella, a libertarian legal theorist and outspoken critic of IP, argues that copyright is an unjust state-granted monopoly that stifles innovation and free speech, rooted in historical control mechanisms like the Stationers Company and the Statute of Anne (1709). He emphasizes that ideas are not scarce resources and thus cannot be owned, drawing on Austrian economics and the nonaggression principle to assert that copying is not theft but a natural part of human learning and competition. Hancock aligns with Kinsella, expressing frustration with government-enforced IP restrictions and advocating for a decentralized, piracy-friendly internet where ideas flow freely, citing examples like Napster and crowdsourced films like Iron Sky to illustrate alternative models. [59:25–2:15:31] Alan Korwin, an author and Second Amendment advocate, defends copyright as a natural property right, arguing that creative works like songs (e.g., Chuck Berry’s “Johnny B. Goode”) are scarce, valuable, and inherently owned by their creators. He equates unauthorized copying to fraud or theft, asserting that creators deserve royalties for their work’s use, as facilitated by private organizations like ASCAP. The debate grows contentious as Korwin accuses libertarians of advocating theft due to their opposition to IP, while Kinsella counters that copyright is a statist tool, not a natural right, and that creators can profit without monopolistic protections. Post-debate, Kinsella and Hancock discuss the broader implications of IP, the rise of pirate culture, and the futility of enforcing copyright in the digital age, with Hancock inviting Kinsella to contribute to the Pirates Without Borders’ Third Letter of Captain Marque on communication and IP. They also touch on libertarian politics, criticizing the Libertarian Party’s drift and praising the growing influence of Rothbardian ideas.   Grok detailed shownotes and Youtube Transcript below. GROK DETAILED SHOWNOTES: Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Segments Segment 1: Introduction and Setting the Stage (0:00–14:38) Description: Ernest Hancock opens the show with a passionate rant against intellectual property, particularly patents and copyrights, which he views as government-enforced restrictions on ideas. He introduces Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian IP critic, and Alan Korwin, an author who defends copyright. Hancock frames the debate as a clash between freedom-oriented libertarians and those who support state-backed IP protections, referencing the Pirate Party and his own Pirates Without Borders initiative. Kinsella briefly defines patents (for inventions) and copyrights (for creative works), noting their historical roots and the extension of copyright terms, particularly through the Sonny Bono Act. Summary: Hancock rails against IP as a control mechanism, citing examples like patented shoe colors and the Pirate Party’s push for online freedom (0:55–2:59). Introduces Kinsella and Korwin, noting Korwin’s Second Amendment books and his recent presentation influenced by Kinsella’s anti-IP work (3:32–4:40). Kinsella explains patents (17-year term) vs. copyrights (life plus 70 years), highlighting the Founders’ 14-year copyright term and Disney’s role in extensions (5:59–8:34). Discussion of IP in trade agreements as “IP imperialism,” with Hancock questioning enforcement in places like China (8:36–9:59). Hancock mentions crowdsourced films like Iron Sky as alternatives to IP-dependent models (12:00–13:29). Segment 2: Historical Context and Copyright’s Origins (14:39–29:12) Description: Kinsella traces copyright’s history to the printing press, when the Stationers Company in England held a state-backed monopoly on publishing, controlled by the Crown and church. The Statute of Anne (1709) shifted rights to authors but favored publishers, creating gatekeepers. Hancock and Kinsella critique this as state control, with Hancock dismissing government authority over ideas. Korwin joins, defending copyright as a natural property right, arguing that creators own their works (e.g., a book written in a room) as part of a “bundle of rights” alongside realty and personalty. He challenges Kinsella’s anti-IP stance, asserting that copying is theft. Summary: Kinsella details copyright’s roots in the Stationers Company and Statute of Anne, linking it to state monopolies (15:50–18:58). Hancock rejects government’s role in regulating ideas, citing constant changes in copyright law (14:38–15:12). Korwin argues copyright is a real, protectable property right, using an exercise where attendees created copyrighted books (29:12–30:49). Korwin claims IP is as valid as land or chattel, asserting that copying a song denies creators rightful profits (30:49–31:33). Segment 3: Debate Intensifies: Property Rights vs. Ideas (29:13–49:58) Description: The debate heats up as Korwin insists that songs like “Johnny B. Goode” are unique, scarce property owned by their creators, equating unauthorized use to fraud. Kinsella counters that copyright is a state-granted monopoly, not a natural right, and that copying isn’t theft since the original creator retains their work. He argues ideas are non-rivalrous, using Austrian economics to explain that information isn’t scarce like physical goods. Hancock supports Kinsella, rejecting the need for government permission to use ideas. Korwin grows frustrated, accusing libertarians of dodging questions and advocating theft, while Kinsella emphasizes the distinction between legal and moral rights. Summary: Korwin argues “Johnny B. Goode” is scarce and valuable, owned by Chuck Berry, and copying it is fraud (41:23–42:26). Kinsella denies songs are property, as they’re non-rivalrous information, not scarce resources (48:43–49:07). Hancock rejects government’s role, arguing ideas can’t be owned and enforcement is impractical (36:06–36:59). Korwin accuses libertarians of inconsistent principles, while Kinsella clarifies copyright’s legal status vs. its injustice (43:17–45:29). Segment 4: Korwin’s Defense and Departure (49:59–1:17:42) Description: Korwin doubles down, arguing that copyright is a natural right, more real than physical property because it’s a unique creation. He cites ASCAP and BMI as private mechanisms for collecting royalties, framing copying as theft that harms creators’ earnings. Kinsella challenges this, noting that copyright restricts free speech and that piracy undermines its enforcement. Hancock mocks the idea of penalties for playing songs, aligning with Kinsella’s view that technology renders copyright moot. Korwin leaves for another commitment, reiterating that libertarians’ anti-IP stance is dishonorable, while Kinsella and Hancock plan to continue the discussion. Summary: Korwin defends copyright as a natural right, citing private royalty systems and equating copying to theft (1:08:46–1:09:25). Kinsella argues copyright stifles speech and that piracy is a positive force against statist control (1:08:30–1:09:31). Hancock emphasizes technology’s role in making copyright unenforceable, citing Napster (1:07:27–1:07:55). Korwin exits, calling anti-IP views sordid, while Kinsella invites him to stay for fairness (1:11:40–1:17:35). Segment 5: Post-Debate Analysis and Libertarian Politics (1:17:43–2:15:31) Description: After Korwin’s departure, Kinsella and Hancock analyze the debate, critiquing Korwin’s reliance on statutory law despite claiming to discuss principles. They discuss how creators like Scott Bieser shifted from pro-IP to anti-IP views after realizing piracy increases notoriety and revenue. Hancock invites Kinsella to contribute to the Pirates Without Borders’ Third Letter of Captain Marque, focusing on communication and IP. The conversation broadens to libertarian politics, with both criticizing the Libertarian Party’s drift toward statism and praising the growing influence of Rothbardian ideas. They discuss the “helicopter meme” controversy involving Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the LP’s attacks on Mises Institute figures, seeing it as a desperate attempt to suppress radical libertarianism. Summary: Kinsella critiques Korwin’s conflation of legal and moral rights, noting piracy’s benefits for creators (1:23:30–1:26:28). Hancock recounts Scott Bieser’s shift and Aaron Russo’s increased earnings from pirated content (1:24:07–1:25:26). Discussion of Pirates Without Borders, with Kinsella agreeing to contribute to the Third Letter (1:29:08–1:32:21). Critique of LP’s attacks on Mises figures, citing the “helicopter” controversy and Sarwark’s petition (1:51:29–2:00:00). Hancock and Kinsella see a cultural shift toward libertarianism, driven by consistent principles (2:05:23–2:08:23). References: Stephan Kinsella’s Against Intellectual Property (Mises Institute). C4SIF.org for Kinsella’s IP resources. Karl Fogel’s article on copyright history (questioncopyright.org, linked at C4SIF.org/resources). Pirates Without Borders (pirateswithoutborders.com) for the Letters of Captain Marque. Rick Falkvinge (falkvinge.net) on piracy and IP. Some of Ernie's shownotes are pasted below.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 228. This is my appearance on Lions of Liberty, Episode 318, with host Marc Clair. We discussed Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "argumentation ethics" defense of libertarian rights, and related issues. Related: “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide” (2011) and Supplemental Resources Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics and Its Critics New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory, 12:2 Journal of Libertarian Studies: 313-26 (Fall 1996) Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach, 12:1 Journal of Libertarian Studies 51 (Spring 1996). Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan, Anti-state.com (Sept. 19, 2002) KOL218 | Argumentation Ethics – Patterson in Pursuit March 26, 2017 Hans Hermann Hoppe, “On The Ethics of Argumentation” (PFS 2016) Frank van Dun, “Argumentation Ethics and The Philosophy of Freedom” Kinsella, The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory KOL161 | Argumentation Ethics, Estoppel, and Libertarian Rights: Adam Smith Forum, Moscow (2014) KOL181 | Tom Woods Show: It Is Impossible to Argue Against Libertarianism Without Contradiction The A priori of Argumention, video introduction by Hoppe 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)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 227. This is my appearance on Voluntary Japan Live! with host Graham Smith. We talked about ownership of thoughts, the basics of libertarian property rights and terms like ownership, mind, brain, causation, action, property, and so on, intellectual property, the nature of contracts, and, of course, the dreaded "toy helicopter" controversy! (Brent Ancap had another post about this with additional links and with an excerpt of the video dealing only with the toy helicopter part here; video here.)   From the VJ Live! shownotes on Youtube: " Streamed live 4 hours ago Libertarian IP lawyer and writer for Mises.com Stephan Kinsella joins the show tonight for a discussion on IP, ownership, and the difficult topic of the very nature of property, itself. Tonight's talk promises to be lively one, as Stephan and I do not seem to see eye-to-eye on every issue. There are many things that, I think, ought to be ironed out regarding libertarian attitudes toward IP, and the all-too-common knee jerk reactions of anarchists against things even as legitimate as voluntary terms of use contracts. Which contracts, for the record, Mr. Kinsella has stated, are indeed legitimate, if unlikely to be entered into. JOIN THE LIVE CHAT WITH YOUR QUESTIONS! SEE YOU SOON! ***LINKS*** Anarchyball Thread Post: https://www.facebook.com/Anarchyball/... “Information is not ownable. Information should not be property.” ~Stephan Kinsella debates Chris LeRoux, 22:07 https://youtu.be/wgJOeWU1Bek *** “Argumentation Ethics, Estoppel, and Libertarian Rights” Presentation (Moscow. Nov. 2, 2014) https://stephankinsella.com/2014/1... *** Mises Wire: The relation between the non-aggression principle and property rights: a response to Division by Zer0 https://mises.org/blog/relation-betwe... *** Patterson in Pursuit Podcast: " https://youtu.be/M22mq4vA4Ew

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 226. See also PFP186. This is a short interview I did while at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society, for Grosse Freiheit TV. Video embedded below. I think this is perhaps not my best performance, but some may find it of interest.