Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 225. This is my speech delivered earlier today at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society, Sept. 17, 2017. Video embedded below. Slides used embedded below (or can be downloaded). Transcript below. The subsequent Q&A session for our panel is also embedded below (but not included in the audio RSS stream on this podcast feed).   Related: Kinsella, A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 (to be included in Law in a Libertarian World) Williamson Evers, “Toward a Reformulation of the Law of Contracts,” vol. 1, no. 1, J. Libertarian Stud. (1977) Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, ch. 19: “Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts” (1982; 1998) Rothbard “Justice and Property Rights,”Property in a Humane Economy, Samuel L. Blumenfeld, ed. (1974) (online here) Also in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (1974) (online here) and later in The Logic of Action One Kinsella, “Justice and Property Rights: Rothbard on Scarcity, Property, Contracts…,” The Libertarian Standard (Nov. 19, 2010) Kinsella on Liberty podcast: KOL146 | Interview of Williamson Evers on the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract KOL197 | Tom Woods Show: The Central Rothbard Contribution I Overlooked, and Why It Matters More detail in my “Libertarian Legal Theory” course, Mises Academy (2011), Lectures 3-4 (see KOL118)   Transcript Reflections on the Theory of Contract by Stephan Kinsella From the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society, Bodrum, Turkey (Sept. 17, 2017) 00:00:11 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Thank you very much, Hans.  Thanks again, once again, to you and Gulcin for the invitation.  I’m honored and happy to be here.  I do believe this is my seventh or eighth time.  I figure that if I keep attending every year that, over time, my percentage rate of attendance will asymptotically approach 100%, sort of like the Bitcoin inflation rate. 00:00:36 Anyway, my topic today is reflections on the theory of contract.  I do have these slides.  I will post them later on my site when I post this talk.  And I have some background material here in the beginning and sprinkled throughout the lecture.  I was going to make a joke that Hans tends to assign me boring-sounding titles.  And I was going through some of the previous ones I’ve done here, which is on property rights and the protection of international investments, patent and copyright, corporations, legislation, and common libertarian misconceptions.  But they actually sound pretty juicy to me.  I guess I’m just a legal geek or something. 00:01:17 But anyway, when you say we’re going to talk about contract, it sounds like it’s a mundane, boring topic, but I believe this is the key, a proper understanding of contract theory is key to having a solid understanding of what libertarian principles are all about.  Libertarians usually view the libertarian theory or principle as the non-aggression principle, or the NAP.  And they’ll usually say something like the initiation of violence against others or aggression is impermissible, and they say so we’re against aggression. 00:01:55 And then they’ll just sort of throw in these other things that are sort of attached to it like ornaments to a Christmas tree.  They’ll say, and you can’t trespass, and you can’t make a threat, and you can’t breach contract, and of course, you can’t commit fraud, as if these are all implicitly part of what it means to commit aggression, and I’ll go over this later.  I think this is—we have to really understand the non-aggression principle is a shorthand for what the libertarian principles are. 00:02:23 But really, aggression is the violence against someone’s body, and all these other things are related to our property theory.  So the common understanding of contract even by libertarians is that contracts are binding promises.  You say something, and you magically create an obligation.  You make something happen.  So I’m going to give a little—I have to have one little stunt here.  I’m going to have a demonstration.  This is my magic wand from Harry Potter.  Lumos!  Okay, it’s magic, right?  The word… 00:02:59 [APPLAUSE] 00:03:01 Thank you.  The point is this is an incantation, a magic word, that made something happen in the idea of Harry Potter and magic.  And this view is similar to what—how most people think of contracts.  You say some magic words like I promise to do this, and therefore, some obligation is magically created. 00:03:23 Now, under the actual law that we’re most used to, which the two main legal systems in the world are the common law and the civil law, which is a type of Roman law.  Under the common law, contract is viewed as if there’s an offer made by someone, and then the person to whom the offer is made accepts it, so we say offer plus acceptance equals binding agreement or contract.  Okay, so A plus B equals C. 00:03:51 In the common law, this contract is only binding if there’s consideration, which means both parties have to give each other something.  However—otherwise, it’s called a nudum pactum.  Sean, I’m trying my Latin here today, or a naked promise, which means it doesn’t have enough consideration to be binding.  However, the common law treats this requirement as basically a formality because it can be something as small as, we say, a peppercorn.  Give me something tiny, which is why contracts often have $1 or $10 that is said to be paid for something large in return, even if it’s not actually paid.  They’re trying to imitate this peppercorn idea or this consideration idea. 00:04:32 The Roman law doesn’t exactly have the consideration requirement.  It’s a little bit more clean, but you need cause, which is the motivation of the parties, which has to be a legal, legitimate cause.  Okay, and before we turn to the—what I think is the correct theory of contract, let me explain in the actual law, the Roman law and also the common law to some extent.  Usually, contracts give rise to obligations, legal obligations.  These obligations are classified as two types.  They’re obligations to do and to give, obligation to do something for someone like an obligation to perform a job, to paint a house, or to sing at a concert.  Or to give means to give someone some property that you own. 00:05:17 The thing is obligations to do are always enforced with damages.  That’s monetary damages.  In other words, if you so-called breach the contract and you don’t perform what you were supposed to do, then the court, in a lawsuit, would award money damages.  They don’t make you perform the action you were supposed to perform.  That would be called specific performance.  And obligations to give something are also enforced by the court ordering you to either give money, which is a type of property, in damages or to transfer the title to the property in some cases, usually with real estate. 00:05:51 So the rule basically is that the courts will not enforce the specific performance.  They will not make you do what you’ve promised to do except in the case of real estate because land is said to be unique.  There’s no replacement for this particular parcel of land because of its location, so they will enforce that specifically, but even in that case, the court is ordering the breaching party to transfer some title to the winning party.  So in reality, all contracts are enforced ultimately by some transfer of property.  It’s never the court will force you to go sing at a concert and put you in jail if you don’t. 00:06:38 Now, the question is, why would this incantation—I hereby obligate myself to do this—why would that be legally bending?  So the law and legal theorists have offered different reasons for why this would be so, and the most common is the expectations, or reliance interests theory.  So the idea is that I promise to do something for you, and then you rely upon what I promised, and then you might change your position.  That’s called detrimental reliance.  You change your position to your detriment if I won’t perform.  So my promise has caused you to change your position relying upon my promise, and therefore, if I’m not held to do that, I’ve harmed you. 00:07:17 So that’s the typical idea that people give.  The problem is that people have pointed out that even Randy Barnett, who is a libertarian, contract law theorist as well, is that this reasoning is circular because the law always says if I promise something and if you reasonably rely upon it, then I could be prevented from denying there was a promise, or I have to follow through with it.  But this reasonable part means that there’s a circularity because it’s not reasonable to rely upon a promise unless it’s going to be legally enforceable.  So if the legal system said promises are not, by themselves, legally enforceable, then no one would reasonably rely upon that, so you see how this is sort of a circular argument. 00:08:03 Now, what’s the proper way to view contract?  The proper way to view contract is to view it as being embedded in the basic concept of libertarian property rights.  So the entire—as Rothbard pointed out, all rights are property rights because every right determines who has the right to control a given scarce resource.  A scarce resource is something that there can be conflict over, that people could have violent conflict over.  So property theory always answers the question who has the right to control this resource.  And libertarianism is simply unique in our particular set of answers to this question—who owns what? 00:08:41 So there are two basic sets of questions.  One is about human bodies, and this is what non-aggression is really about.  In the case of bodies, our answer is self-ownership.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 224. I was a guest on the Tom Woods show, Episode 998, today, discussing the work and theories of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. More--

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 223. I was interviewed for the Our Interesting Times podcast, by host Tim Kelly, for the Aug. 8, 2017 episode, to discuss the basic case against intellectual property law.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 222. This is my second speech at last weekend's Mises Brasil's 2017 “V Conferência de Escola Austríaca” [5th Austrian School Conference], Mises Brasil, Universidade Mackenzie, São Paulo, Brazil (May 12–13, 2017): “Intellectual Property Imperialism Versus Innovation and Freedom.” The Q&A is included even though the questions are in Portuguese; most answers should make sense given the context.  This is a recording from my iPhone; video and higher quality audio will be linked later. The video is embedded here: The slides that I use are embedded below. Slides used for Mises Brasil: My original slides:

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 221. This is my first speech at Mises Brasil's 2017 “V Conferência de Escola Austríaca” [5th Austrian School Conference], Mises Brasil, Universidade Mackenzie, São Paolo, Brazil (May 12–13, 2017): “State Legislation versus Law and Liberty.” The Q&A is included even though the questions are in Portugese; most answers should make sense given the context. This is a recording from my iPhone; video and higher quality audio will be linked later. Update: See also Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society. The Youtube is here: The slides that I use are embedded below. Slides used for Mises Brasil: My original slides: Further resources: KOL001 | “The (State’s) Corruption of (Private) Law” (PFS 2012) KOL129 | Speech to Montessori Students: “The Story of Law: What Is Law, and Where Does it Come From?” KOL199 | Tom Woods Show: The State’s Corruption of Private Law, or We Don’t Need No Legislature “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995), p. 132.1 Condensed version: Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010)  Is English Common Law Libertarian? (Powerpoint; PDF) Further reading: Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the Law Watson, Alan, The Importance of “Nutshells” Herman, Shael, The Louisiana Civil Code: A European Legacy for the United States Giovanni Sartori, Liberty and Law Alan Watson, Roman Law and Comparative Law The Story of Law, by John M. Zane (I haven’t finished it yet but liked what read so far) (also online) Arthur Hogue, The Origins of the Common Law 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 220. This is my interview by Rod Rojas of the Future Gravy show, which focuses on bitcoin and blockchain topics. We discussed how patents harm innovation and various strategies some companies use to try to deal with the patent threat, such as patent pooling, defensive patent licensing, whether Blockstream's Patent Pledge is really a tactic that makes them a patent threat to the blockchain community, and related matters. The video is embedded below. Relevant material: Blockstream’s Defensive Patent Strategy: Patent Pledge EFF: The Defensive Patent License; Blockstream Announces Defensive Patent Strategy; Blockstream: Modified Innovator’s Patent Agreement; EFF: Blockstream Commits to Patent Nonaggression. Kinsella, The Patent Defense League and Defensive Patent Pooling ----, Do Business Without Intellectual Property ----, “Defensive Patent License” created to protect innovators from trolls; probably won’t work ----, Twitter Heroically Promises Not to Use Patents Offensively The Patent Pledge KOL220 | Future Gravy Interview about Blockstream and the Defensive Patent License Bitmex: A blockchain-specific defensive patent licence.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 219. I delivered a talk earlier today for the Houston Property Rights Association (April 28, 2017), “Property: What It Is and Isn’t,” which sets out the framework for how to view property rights in general and then finally turns to intellectual property. The main talk lasted for about the first 30 minutes; the final hour is Q&A. My speech notes (unedited and raw) are below. Property: What It Is and Isn’t   Stephan Kinsella Kinsella Law Group, Libertarian Papers, C4SIF.org   Houston Property Rights Association · April 28, 2017   Ï   When a Great Austrian thinker was asked, “What is Best in Life?” He answered: “To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.”   Okay, that was Arnold Scharzenegger as Conan. This recognizes that conflict always possible in human life There are only so many “things” to go around, and if multiple people want it, they can fight violently over it. There can be conflict, precisely because we do not live in a world of superabundance. Garden of Eden etc. we live in a world where conflict is possible Another way to put this: we live in a world of scarce resources Better called “rivalrous”   Let’s turn to the ideas of another great Austrian thinker, Ludwig von Mises Praxeology: the logic of human action Structure of human action Humans use knowledge about the world to select, control and employ scarce resources (means of action) to change the future—to achieve ends Notice two crucial ingredients to successful human action: knowledge, and scarce resources/means. This is true of Crusoe alone on his island It is also true of man in society   In society there is another way to handle the problem of scarce resources Instead of conflict, we can develop usage or ownership rules, to permit scarce resources to be used peacefully, productively, cooperatively, and without conflict This is the origin and basis of “property”. Alone, a man wants to use a thing: he uses it: he controls it, possesses it. In society, there could be two people who want the same thing, but because it is scarce only one can use it. Usage rules emerge that specify an owner of a given contestable resource. We call this system “property rights” We sometimes call the objects themselves “property” That chair is my property When you use a resource to change the world, in addition to your hands, your body, it becomes an extension of yourself. It becomes identified with the user. “Part of” the user. We might say it is a feature, or characteristic, or an aspect, of the user—or a “property” of the user. My gun, my knife, my fishing net, are how I control the world. I rely on them as I rely on my hands and my eyes. Thus we refer to owned objects as “a property of” the owner. we say he has a “proprietary interest in” the object, he is the proprietor, the owner. He has a property right in that resource. Notice earlier: can say these resources are “characteristics” or “features” or properties of a person’s identity. It would be odd to say “that chair is my characteristic” or “my feature”. Yet we are used to saying “that chair is my property” but what we mean is: a given person is the owner of that resource. A given person has a property right in that resource.   A system of property rights, or law, emerges, which determines owners of various resources. Who has a property right in this thing? Who owns it? “Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property.” — FrédéricBastiat This is true of all legal and political systems, even socialist What distinguishes libertarianism and free market, western systems is our property allocation rules. These are: self-ownership (body-ownership), plus: for scarce resources, three rules: Original appropriation (homesteading; Locke) Consensual transfer (contract; gift; bequest) Rectification (restitution) for tort or crime Any other system deviates from these rules and assigns property rights based on some other, non-natural rule. Any other rule is a type of theft or taking of property rights, or a form of slavery Briefly explain basis for the three rules   Intellectual Property Patent and copyright “Article I, Section 8of the United States Constitution, empowers the United States Congress: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Is IP “property” —is not the right question. That’s like asking “is IP feature? Is IP characteristic?” Is it compatible with capitalist property allocation rules? Remember distinction between knowledge and resources in human action. Explain IP as “negative servitudes” and contrary to capitalist property allocation rules Rothbard’s “autistic,” “binary” and “triangular” taxonomy of state intervention

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 218. This is Episode 50 of the Patterson in Pursuit podcast, where host Steve Patterson interviews me about Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics. [Update: He does a breakdown of our discussion in Episode 63.] Patterson's description: If we choose to argue, have we presupposed an ethical framework? Is “self-ownership” a concept that cannot coherently be doubted? To help me answer these questions, I’m joined by one of the most prominent supporters of “argumentation ethics” – the theory that says ownership is inescapable, and as soon as we choose to argue, we’re committed to a set of ethical values. Related resources: Kinsella, “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide” (2011) and Supplemental Resources Hans Hermann Hoppe, “On The Ethics of Argumentation” (PFS 2016) Kinsella, New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory Frank van Dun, "Argumentation Ethics and The Philosophy of Freedom" Kinsella, The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory Kinsella, Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 217. This is Episode 14 of the MusicPreneur podcast, "Intellectual Property is the Bastard Child of the Gatekeepers," run by host James Newcomb (recorded Jan. 9, 2017; released Jan. 31, 2017). I appeared on his previous podcast, Outside the Music Box, a while back (KOL204 | Outside the Music Box Interview: The Ins and Outs of Intellectual Property). This one is a fresh, stand-alone discussion where I lay out the case against IP fairly methodically. MusicPreneur shownotes below. See also my A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP. GROK SHOWNOTES: In this interview on the MusicPreneur podcast, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella delivers a wide-ranging critique of intellectual property (IP) laws—especially patents and copyrights—calling them illegitimate state-enforced monopolies rooted in historical gatekeeping, censorship, and privilege rather than genuine property rights (0:00–10:00). Kinsella traces the origins of copyright to pre-printing-press censorship by church and crown, through the Stationers’ Company monopoly, to the 1710 Statute of Anne, and patents to royal letters patent and mercantilist grants (e.g., the 1623 Statute of Monopolies), arguing that both systems were designed to control knowledge and speech, not to protect creators (10:01–25:00). Using Austrian economics, he explains that property rights exist only for scarce, rivalrous resources, while ideas are non-scarce and cannot be owned; IP artificially creates scarcity, restricting how people use their own tangible property (e.g., a patented mousetrap) and stifling competition and innovation (25:01–40:00). Kinsella critiques the economic and cultural harms of IP, including inflated prices in pharmaceuticals, litigation costs, and censorship of expression, contrasting these with IP-free industries like open-source software and fashion that thrive on emulation and first-mover advantage (40:01–55:00). He debunks common pro-IP arguments—the utilitarian incentive story, labor/creation-based claims, and personality theories—labeling them flawed, self-serving, or empirically unsupported, and argues that IP is a modern form of mercantilism that benefits gatekeepers (large corporations, Hollywood, Big Pharma) at the expense of creators, consumers, and freedom (55:01–1:10:00). In the discussion/Q&A portion, Kinsella addresses alternatives (trade secrets, reputation, market incentives), the digital age’s erosion of IP enforcement, and why even small creators would be better off without IP, concluding that the system should be abolished entirely (1:10:01–end). This interview is a clear, provocative libertarian takedown of IP, especially valuable for musicians, creators, and entrepreneurs. Transcript and Grok Detailed Summary below GROK DETAILED SUMMARY 0:00–10:00 (Introduction, Kinsella’s background, and the core thesis, ~10 minutes) Description: Host James Newcomb introduces Kinsella as a patent attorney and libertarian critic of IP. Kinsella explains his unusual position: he has prosecuted hundreds of patents for large companies (Intel, GE, Lucent, etc.) while believing all forms of IP should be abolished. He states his central thesis: IP is the “bastard child of the gatekeepers”—a modern continuation of historical censorship and monopoly privilege, not a legitimate form of property. He briefly previews the historical and economic critique to come. Key Themes: Kinsella’s dual role: patent lawyer who opposes patents/copyrights IP as illegitimate monopoly privilege, not property Framing: IP is rooted in gatekeeping (church, state, guilds, publishers) Summary: Kinsella establishes his credentials and the provocative title, setting up IP as a statist, gatekeeper-derived system rather than a natural right. 10:01–25:00 (Historical origins of copyright and patent: censorship & mercantilism, ~15 minutes) Description: Kinsella traces copyright to pre-printing-press church/state control of scribes, then to the Stationers’ Company monopoly (chartered to control printing), and finally to the Statute of Anne (1710), which shifted the monopoly from printers to authors/publishers but remained a state privilege. Patents originated in royal “letters patent” (open letters granting monopolies), abused by monarchs for revenue/favors, leading to the 1623 Statute of Monopolies. Both systems were originally about control, censorship, and mercantilist privilege, not “property rights.” Key Themes: Copyright as successor to censorship monopolies Patents as royal/mercantilist grants Both were temporary privileges, not natural rights Summary: Detailed historical account showing IP began as censorship and monopoly tools of the state and crown, not as recognition of creators’ natural rights. 25:01–40:00 (Scarcity, property rights, and why IP is conceptually impossible, ~15 minutes) Description: Kinsella explains the Austrian/libertarian view: property rights exist only to allocate scarce, rivalrous resources and avoid conflict. Ideas, patterns, and information are non-scarce (infinitely reproducible without depriving others), so they cannot be owned. IP law therefore artificially creates scarcity where none exists, restricting how people use their own tangible property (e.g., ink, paper, machines). He uses the mousetrap example: a patent doesn’t take your mousetrap away; it takes your right to use your own materials to build one. Key Themes: Property rights exist only for scarce/rivalrous things Ideas are non-scarce → cannot be property IP = negative easement / servitude over others’ physical property Summary: Core conceptual critique: IP is impossible in principle because ideas are non-scarce; enforcing IP violates real (physical) property rights. 40:01–55:00 (Economic and cultural harms of IP; modern gatekeepers, ~15 minutes) Description: Kinsella discusses IP’s practical harms: patents distort R&D toward trivial patentable inventions, create litigation wars, raise prices (pharma), and enable patent trolling. Copyright locks up culture, limits remixing/fan works, and creates gatekeepers (publishers, labels, Hollywood). He compares modern IP enforcement (domain seizures, ISP cooperation, warrantless searches) to historical mercantilist abuses, arguing that large corporations are the new gatekeepers using IP to extract rents and suppress competition. Key Themes: Economic harms: litigation, price inflation, distorted R&D Cultural harms: locked-up works, stifled remixing Modern IP = mercantilism 2.0; big corporations as new gatekeepers Summary: IP creates massive economic waste and cultural enclosure, serving corporate gatekeepers rather than creators or consumers. 55:01–1:10:00 (Debunking common pro-IP arguments, ~15 minutes) Description: Kinsella systematically dismantles the main justifications for IP: Natural rights / Lockean labor theory (flawed metaphor; labor is not ownable; creation is not a source of title). Utilitarian incentive story (empirical evidence shows IP does not increase net innovation; costs outweigh benefits). Personality theory (Hegel/Rand; vague and does not justify monopoly). He also rejects contractual IP schemes (cannot bind third parties) and notes that even trade secrets become problematic when turned into state-enforceable misappropriation causes of action. Key Themes: Natural rights / labor theory is conceptually confused Utilitarian case is empirically weak Personality theory is vague and insufficient Summary: Comprehensive takedown of every major intellectual justification for IP, showing they are either conceptually flawed or empirically unsupported. 1:10:01–end (Digital age, AI, future evasion, and conclusion, ~remaining time) Description: Kinsella discusses how digital technology is eroding copyright (easy copying, encryption, Tor) and predicts that maturing 3D printing + encrypted designs will eventually make patents unenforceable (1:10:01–1:15:00). He notes that AI is already being hampered by copyright threats (training data lawsuits), and hopes the immense value of AI will force society to confront the conflict between IP and human progress (1:15:01–1:20:00). He closes by reiterating that IP is a modern mercantilist gatekeeping system, not property, and calls for its abolition, directing listeners to c4sif.org for more systematic arguments (1:20:01–end). Key Themes: Digital technology is making copyright obsolete and unenforceable AI vs. IP: the coming conflict • • Final call to abolish IP and make it “history” Summary: Kinsella looks forward to technology eroding IP enforcement, highlights the AI-copyright tension, and concludes with a call to end IP entirely. SHOWNOTES from host James Newcomb 01/31/2017 | 0 Listen to this episode Play / pause 1x Intellectual Property is the Bastard Child of the Gatekeepers (Ep. 14) 0:00 0:00 Intellectual Property is the Bastard Child of the Gatekeepers (Ep. 14) Download "Doing Business Without Intellectual Property!" Download stephankinsella.com You're probably going to disagree with what is said in this episode. In fact, it could very well make you angry. But, as Bob Dylan said, "The times, they are a changin'." It's an issue that I've wrestled with over the years and have finally come to the conclusion that Intellectual Property (IP) is detrimental to progress and innovation. While on the surface it appears to protect the rights of content creators to profit from their content, the reality is that the only people who really profit are the "gate keepers" and those who hang out near "the gates". I've tried to take a "back door" approach with this issue before,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 216. I was a guest recently on Isaac Morehouse's podcast, "Why Intellectual Property Sucks, with Stephan Kinsella" (Oct. 10, 2016), discussing intellectual property and related issues. Isaac's description below, along with the transcript. Is intellectual property law the foundation of an innovative society? Or a racket set up to protect entrenched businesses from competition? Stephan Kinsella joins the show this week to break down intellectual property law. Stephan is a practicing patent attorney, a libertarian writer and speaker, Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF), and Founding and Executive Editor of Libertarian Papers. He is one of the clearest and most compelling thinkers on intellectual property law. We cover the historical context of IP law, the modern day consequences of copyright and patent monopolies, the flaws in common arguments for intellectual property laws, and more. Covered in this episode: How did Stephan become interested in intellectual property? His intellectual evolution on the topic of intellectual property What are copyright, patent, trademarks, and trade secrets? Where did the concept of intellectual property come from? Which IP laws are the most harmful? Fraud vs. Trademarks Libertarian perspectives on IP John Locke’s  errors on property that affect us today Why Innovation is stronger without IP (fashion, food, football) Problems with trade secret law Copyright law that existed under common law Why IP is wrong from a deontological and consequentialist point of view How would J.K. Rowling make a living without IP? How to be principled about IP as an entrepreneur while not harming your company Links: www.stephankinsella.com How I Changed My Mind on Intellectual Property by Isaac Morehouse Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella (free) Do business without IP by Stephan Kinsella Episode 14: Harris Kenny on 3D Printing and a World Without Intellectual Property C4SIF.org (Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom) Ayn Rand on IP Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David Levine (Free version) The Case Against Patents by Michele Boldrin and David Levine If you are a fan of the show, make sure to leave a review on iTunes. All episodes of the Isaac Morehouse Podcast are available on SoundCloud, iTunes, Google Play, and Stitcher. Transcript (auto-generated by youtube): 0:02 [Music] 0:17 this is Isaac Morehouse welcome to the podcast where we discuss education 0:22 entrepreneurship big ideas how to put them into practice in the real world and above all how to live free how to go 0:33 from zero to a startup job in nine months you don't need to jump through 0:39 hoops or blast out resumes you can start today praxis combines a 3-month professional 0:46 bootcamp with a six month paid apprenticeship at a startup that leads directly to a 0:52 full-time job startups aren't just for coders sales marketing operations even if you're not 1:00 sure what you're interested in praxis places you with a dynamic growing company where you do work you love 1:06 become part of a team and make a difference praxis is tailored to your goals and your interests coaching 1:13 sessions group discussions with your peers skills training and a portfolio of projects along with the imprensa ship 1:20 create a powerful combination of real world experience and intensive learning 1:26 we are relentlessly committed to helping you discover and do what makes you come 1:33 alive we don't just prepare you for a job we actually give you one no degree 1:39 is required to get started on your career whether you're an ambitious go-getter right out of high school a 1:45 creative thinker who's bored in college or a college grad looking for the next 1:50 step discover praxis great jobs are waiting are you ready 1:58 [Music] 2:10 today I am very excited to have on the show stephan kinsella this is actually Guest introduction 2:15 when I first launched the podcast when I made my first list of potential guests I wanted to have Stefan was on that very 2:21 first list that it's taken over a year for whatever reason to just get him on 2:27 the show and do an episode about intellectual property so Stefan welcome 2:32 to the podcast thanks a lot glad to be here so briefly introducing you and I know your bio is 2:37 much more deep in why'd Stefan is a patent lawyer interestingly enough has 2:44 been for almost 25 years now he also has a podcast he is a scholar has written 2:49 many both sort of popular and scholarly articles on everything from intellectual 2:55 property which is our subject today to you know all kinds of legal theory the 3:01 philosophy of Liberty many many more he's he's kind of the foremost expert on intellectual property certainly from a 3:09 free-market standpoint he's the founder and director of the Center for hold on 3:15 I'm gonna get the name wrong let me make sure I get it right the the Center for the study of innovative freedom which is 3:23 really focused on the intellectual property topic so Stefan what did I miss 3:28 in your bio that's important you got it right I am a quick summary of my path 3:37 was an 82 I became a libertarian through reading Rand in high school and around 88 in law school I became an anarchist 3:44 after reading Rothbard and the others and around 1992 or so 1993 I started 3:50 practicing patent law and that's right when I became anti IP at the same time so right when I learned enough about IP 3:57 law to start practicing it I also learned enough to realize that it was completely incompatible with libertarian 4:02 property rights yeah so let's let's jump right in there because as that was one of the first things I want to ask you How did you get into IP 4:08 how did you get into you know the issue they're interested in the issue of the 4:14 intellectual property and and how have you sort of maintained a career a patent attorney well you've had this 4:22 philosophical position in opposition to IP so how did it start yeah well you're just reading reading 4:28 the basics of libertarian theory like when I was younger in college and even earlier Iran's defense of intellectual 4:33 property you know they never quite made sense to me like the other stuff did because she's like in favor of this 4:40 patent system which gives you a monopoly over in addition but for 17 years and 4:45 copyright gives you a monopoly over an idea but for you know 60 or 70 years but it's it's like an arbitrary time frame 4:53 and that doesn't see didn't seem like to me I said there's something wrong with this because natural rights lasts forever if they're justified so I I just 5:00 put it on the back burner and I figured I figured they knew more than I did about it and I kept thinking about it 5:07 and when I went to law school I thought more when I started practicing in a different field in an international law 5:13 and oil and gas or energy law but I finally switched over to patents because the the tech field was really good at 5:20 the time in law the patent law field so I switched over and at that time I just 5:26 started thinking more and more about it and I started doing a lot more reading I read works by Wendy McIlroy who I really 5:32 think is basically the pioneer in libertarian theory in intellectual property I really think she's the first 5:38 one who basically got it right she didn't flesh it out completely but she 5:45 she was there with Sam Konkan and Benjamin Tucker before her who she'd 5:51 studied but Benjamin Tucker's reasoning was not exactly right he was sort of 5:56 against monopoly for the same reason he was against monopolies and land so you can see that his reasoning wasn't quite 6:02 pure libertarian on this but Sam Konkan and Wendy Mack award really got it right 6:08 I think especially Wendy and and then Tom Palmer sort of writing some really good more advanced stuff in the 90s so I 6:16 read all that and some other people's works and I finally came to the conclusion oh the reason I'm having trouble justifying this because I 6:22 thought you know I know more about IP than most libertarians because I'm practicing it I can be the one who finally figured this out and explains 6:28 why it's why it is justified after all why yeah have a better explanation than ran did which by the way is what her chief sort 6:36 of a legal disciple right now Adam Moss off has been trying to do for a dozen years now or so he he keeps promising to 6:43 come up with some kind of defensive IP that is I guess better than rands but he just keeps repeating what she said as 6:49 far as I can tell and mixing it in with like utilitarian arguments like those of Richard Epstein so but I on the other 6:56 hand finally concluded that the reason I was having trouble finding a good argument for IP was because the same 7:02 reason I would have trouble finding an argument for slavery it's because it can't be justified so that was that was 7:08 my path and the the the basic reasoning I came to was not really utilitarian although I think empirical arguments or 7:16