Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 436. I was interviewed today by Kelly Patrick of the Kelly Patrick Show ep. 777. I fielded questions from his The Kelly Patrick Show Political Chat facebook group, mostly questions from nonlibertarians or people critical of libertarianism. We discussed the prospects of liberty, activism, why people are not persuaded by libertarian arguments, the prospects of the Libertarian Party, intellectual property, anarchism, and so on.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 435. I was interviewed by Daniel Morena Vitón and Luis Abram for a Spanish libertarian podcast, as he initially told me: "The interview is about some legal questions of libertarianism, for a new libertarian association in Spain founded by Jesús Huerta de Soto, the 'Austrian Libertarian Association.'" I believe there were technical problems with the recording of the first question or two, so I was asked to repeat my answer near the end; sure how they ended stitching this together or editing this. From their shownotes (Google autotranslate): Stephan Kinsella will give the keys regarding various topics from intellectual issues that concern libertarianism such as intellectual property and the challenges that it entails, as well as more current topics such as libertarians in politics or the current libertarian parties that the political landscape houses. https://youtu.be/L78827aNHR0?si=g3rv2hkfcDJnt79m

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 434. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Exploring The Objectivist Ethics with Stephan Kinsella. (Spotify) https://youtu.be/Dzv1euK5XKg?si=vcvjrh3XZ9sCRx9Y Join host Michael Liebowitz for a thought-provoking episode of The Rational Egoist as he engages in a stimulating discussion with Stephan Kinsella, a prominent libertarian writer and patent attorney, on The Objectivist Ethics. In this enlightening conversation, Michael and Stephan delve into the foundational principles of Objectivism, exploring its ethical framework, implications for individual freedom, and relevance in contemporary society. Drawing on his expertise in libertarian legal theory and intellectual property law, Stephan Kinsella offers valuable insights into The Objectivist Ethics, as formulated by philosopher Ayn Rand. He provides a comprehensive overview of Rand's philosophical system, highlighting its emphasis on reason, individualism, and rational self-interest as the basis for moral conduct. Listeners will gain a deeper understanding of The Objectivist Ethics, as Michael and Stephan explore its implications for issues such as property rights, personal autonomy, and the pursuit of happiness. They discuss the role of rational self-interest in fostering human flourishing and examine the ethical principles that underpin a free and just society. This episode serves as a platform for intellectual inquiry and philosophical exploration, as Michael and Stephan engage in a rigorous examination of Objectivist ethics and its implications for human behavior and social organization. Through reasoned discourse and critical analysis, they offer listeners valuable insights into the moral foundations of liberty and the pursuit of individual well-being. Tune in to The Rational Egoist for an enlightening conversation with Stephan Kinsella as we explore The Objectivist Ethics. Whether you're a student of philosophy, a curious thinker, or someone seeking to deepen your understanding of ethical principles, this episode promises to inform, inspire, and provoke thoughtful reflection on the nature of human morality and the pursuit of a rational life.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 433. This is my appearance on The Big Questions with Big John. From his shownotes: Libertarian Stephan Kinsella shares his background as an engineer turned lawyer. A conversation on IP rights delves into arguments against patents & copyrights. https://youtu.be/SpcQUIMsj5k?si=zEnZZXcEM3IY5UL-

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 432. My appearance on Adam Haman's podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack), episode 27. I have previously argued against "school choice" (KOL419 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Corey Deangelis: School Choice). Adam wrote an article promoting school choice and I objected to it. He invited me to come back on his show to discuss and I did and, well, he kinda sorta changed my mind, or at least softened my opposition. I love these kind of real conversations when people actually listen to each other with the shared goal of promoting liberty and reaching the truth, and with no ego or other investments involved that could prevent you from seeing reason or truth or the other guy's position and even being willing to change your mind. And I like when I lose! I mean it rarely happens, but I like it--it means I learned something. Which is also increasingly rare. Enjoy! https://youtu.be/WOcHI4Jtn9s?si=6U-GX8013NJtWYvh Adam's shownotes: Well, "debate" is too strong a word, but brilliant smarty-pants Stephan Kinsella had some disagreements about an article Adam wrote about school choice and was gracious enough to come on Haman Nature to discuss them. 00:00 – Intro. 01:15 -- Happy birthday to Adam! Stephan's gives him an... odd present. Also, Adam recounts the article he wrote that prompted this talk. 02:54 -- Stephan lays out his position on school choice, and similar "reform" measures or "incrementalism". 06:55 – Adam defends. Let the "debate" begin! 15:33 – Adam scores a point! 17:13 – And another! And possibly another (depending on... math)! 22:15 – Adam swings hard. Is it a home run? 24:26 – Adam makes a prediction about markets and innovations under school choice. 26:10 -- Stephan makes some strong and principled objections. 28:52 -- Adam scores another point! Plus, the biggest moment in the entire episode. 33:36 -- A very important legislative clause to watch like a hawk. Also, is it worth the risk? 35:18 -- Say it was up to you as the deciding vote. Which way do you cast it? 38:36 -- Hey, Corey! Plus, Stephan gives Adam a much better birthday present! 39:57 -- Outro. Subscribe Stephan Kinsella's website: Haman Nature article mentioned: Stephan's Soho Forum debate with Corey DeAngelis on School Choice: Adam's other show: Natural Order Podcast

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 431. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Exploring Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics with Stephan Kinsella. (Spotify) https://youtu.be/hgPJCebYj-I?si=hPN2vGmj_dbkdtk4 From his shownotes: In a stimulating episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz engages in a thought-provoking discussion and debate with Stephan Kinsella, a prominent libertarian writer and patent attorney, on Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics. Drawing on their deep knowledge of libertarian legal theory and philosophical principles, Michael and Stephan delve into the nuances of Hoppe's argument and its implications for understanding individual rights and property norms. Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics serves as the focal point of this conversation, as Michael and Stephan critically examine its premises, logic, and implications. With rigorous analysis and intellectual rigor, they explore the foundational principles underlying argumentation ethics and assess its strengths and weaknesses as a framework for understanding natural rights and ethical norms. Listeners will be treated to a dynamic exchange of ideas and perspectives, as Michael and Stephan engage in a spirited debate on key aspects of argumentation ethics, including its reliance on self-ownership, the universality of ethical principles, and its compatibility with other libertarian theories of property and justice. Through reasoned discourse and respectful disagreement, they offer listeners a comprehensive overview of the complexities involved in grappling with foundational questions of ethics and rights. This episode is not just an intellectual exercise but also a testament to the vitality of philosophical inquiry and the importance of engaging in robust dialogue to deepen our understanding of fundamental concepts. Whether you're a seasoned libertarian thinker, a student of philosophy, or someone curious about the intersection of ethics and political theory, this episode offers a captivating exploration of Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics and its implications for our understanding of individual freedom and moral principles. Tune in to The Rational Egoist for an enlightening conversation with Stephan Kinsella, as we delve into the intricacies of Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics and its relevance for contemporary debates on rights, justice, and human flourishing. Whether you find yourself nodding in agreement or raising questions of your own, this episode promises to ignite your curiosity and inspire deeper reflection on the principles that underpin a free and just society.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 429. A facebook friend from Brazil, Bruno Pires, corresponded with me about some various issues and we decided to discuss it for a podcast episode. We discuss a variety of issues. See his promoted VPN sponsor Aria VPN. https://youtu.be/a8YdkT2_Tec

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 428. I was a guest on Episode 316 of The Bob Murphy Show, entitled “Stephan Kinsella on Rothbard’s Contributions to Legal Theory." Bob's shownotes: "Stephan joins Bob to discuss his new book, Legal Foundations of a Free Society. They cover Rothbard’s contributions to legal theory, as well as Bob and Stephan’s differing entry points into libertarianism." https://youtu.be/iWx8DKMwk30?si=54KjWm_BndPX4a_e

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 427. Yesterday (April 10, 2024) I participated in Strings Attached: Tracing the Global Systems that Bind, 62nd Annual International Affairs Symposium, Lewis & Clark College, Portland Oregon, Debate 5: Pirates and Patents. Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism? My opponent was Pieter Cleppe. My notes are appended below. https://youtu.be/f_cpqc-oHd0 We got along well and had a nice dinner after the debate. (Unofficial iphone Audio (mp3)) Strings Attached: Tracing the Global Systems that Bind. 62nd Annual International Affairs Symposium Debate 5: Pirates and Patents. Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism? Lewis & Clark College, Portland Oregon April 10, 2024 Stephan Kinsella   Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism? “Patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc, are intangible legal protections that allow creators to monopolize the distribution of their ideas. The international system managing these rights is often praised for promoting and protecting innovation. However, it raises the costs of acquiring new technologies, life-saving medicines, and access to knowledge for developing states. How should international intellectual property standards balance these competing interests?”   Introduction I am a practicing patent and intellectual property, or IP, attorney for 30 years and a libertarian for even longer than that. At the dawn of my career, after many years of research and thought, I came to the conclusion that all forms of IP law are completely unjust. This perspective will inform my remarks today.   Notice my opponent’s remarks were not systematic and did not carefully define the relevant terms. In fact his arguments rested on two false assumptions: that patent and copyright increase innovation, and that IP law is therefore justified.   Imperialism and IP What is imperialism? Imperialism: “a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force.” “Imperialism is when a country extends its power into other territories for economic or political gain.” Now, IP law is prevalent in the west: patent, copyright, trademark, and other forms. There can be little doubt that the west, especially the United States, has used its influence and power to push or even coerce other countries to adopt US-style IP law, primarily patent and copyright This is done sometimes by direct imposition or, more usually, by softer forms of coercion such as investment and free trade agreements or other international treaties Direct imposition/coercion: for example the US expanded Iraqi patent law by decree in 2004, by order of Paul Bremer, the “Administrator” of the “Coalition Provisional Authority” German constitution, or “Basic Law,” 1949, under US domination: Article 96 authorizes the establishment by federal law of the Federal Patent Court Example below: under pressures from the west, the Thai government specifically undertook not to implement Article 8 (on compulsory licensing) for HIV/AIDS treatment Treaties: The Berne Convention already requires member states to have a minimum copyright term of life of the author plus 50 years; the US has added 20 years to this(life plus 70) Treaties such as the Paris Convention and Patent Cooperation Treaty require member states to maintain certain minimum patent protections The US uses its dominant position to force other countries or regions to adopt US-style IP policies via “free trade” agreements and others like Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) 2500 BITs in the world today, many US-sponsored International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution, chapter 6, Part B. The TPP(Trans-Pacific Partnership), an ostensibly free trade agreement, was actually a disguised attempt to force other countries to strengthen their copyright law For example, although it was never finally ratified, during negotiations, the US then twisted Canada’s arm to extend its copyright term as a condition of even being considered for TPP If you want the benefits of free trade with us, you need to put people in jail for “pirating” our Hollywood cronies’ movies and add 20 years to your copyright term https://c4sif.org/2013/10/longer-copyright-terms-stiffer-copyright-penalties-coming-thanks-to-tpp-and-acta/ TPP Exposed: WikiLeaks Publishes Secret Trade Text to Rewrite Copyright Laws, Limit Internet Freedom SOPA II? Obama’s Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Think about it: what does a free trade agreement have to do with local property rights, much less IP rights? The US, at the behest of Hollywood and other special interests, keeps pushing other nations to strengthen protection of copyright. For example, the ACTA(Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), and TPP, which was being pushed by the  entertainment industry “to get SOPA-like laws introduced around the globe.” (Stop Online Piracy Act) SOPA is just another incarnation or variation of related acts, like the  PRO-IP Actof 2008; the corresponding Senate bill, the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA); and others like the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN), so the TPP is morphing into the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership under pressure from US, Mexico’s IP office endorsed ACTA [Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement] and attempted to persuade the legislature to ratify if, after the EU’s parliament rejected it Mexico’s IP Office Surprised Its Congress By Signing ACTA, And Now Hopes To Win Their Support. “Free-trade” pacts export U.S. copyright controls In fact, the Covid-19 Relief Bill Adds Criminal Copyright Streaming Penalties and IP Imperialism The COVID-19 Stimulus Bill Would Make Illegal Streaming a Felony “Provided further, That of the funds provided under this heading, not less than $17,100,000 is for modernization initiatives, of which $10,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2022: Provided further, That not more than $100,000 of the amount appropriated is available for the maintenance of an ‘‘International Copyright Institute’’ in the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress for the purpose of training nationals of developing countries in intellectual property laws and policies…” So there can be no serious doubt that the US and the west have succeeded in having almost every country in the world sign on to the major IP treaties, conform their local law to western IP standards, for patent, copyright, and trademark. Copyright: Berne Convention (1886) and WIPO Copyright Treaty (1996) Patent: Paris Convention (1883); Patent Cooperation Treaty (1970) Trademark: Madrid System There is also the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade(GATT) and the 1994 Uruguay Round which covers IP And the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights(TRIPS) The Mountain of IP Legislation The US also uses its power to nudge or coerce others to strengthen or expand IP via bilateral or multilateral trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties Even though free trade has nothing to do with the local property rights of the other country, much less their IP laws Free trade just means low or zero tariffs so as not to impede trade between nations It does not need to specify the internal legal system or internal property rights regime of each party   Now if the West were somehow encouraging developing nations to adopt stronger property rights and civil liberties, we might not call it imperialism, or we might not mind so much. Everyone seems happy with the way the US transformed Germany and Japan’s legal systems after WWII to have free markets and civil liberties.   The Problem with IP The only way to fully understand the problem of IP imperialism is to understand its nature and why IP laws are unjust and so harmful to nations that are coerced to adopt them In short, patent and copyright laws are completely unjust and should be abolished. They harm consumers by reducing their choice, violating their freedom and rights, increasing prices and reducing innovation. These laws benefit a few major US/western industries—Hollywood/movies (copyright), the music industry (copyright), the pharmaceutical industry (patents/FDA), Big Agriculture (Monsanto) (patents), book and journal publishing (US and Europe; copyright), and some high tech industries (Microsoft, Apple ; copyright, patents, trademark)—at the expense of US consumers and developing countries who are forced to pay higher prices to enrich these US special interests Re Monsanto: See Jeff Tucker, Who Poisoned Our Food? Libertarians often rail against taxation, central banking, government-run schools, redistribution, war, and victimless crime laws like drug laws, but patent and copyright are as bad or worse than most of these things. Very insidious and harmful There is nothing good about IP law There is nothing to “balance” There are no good arguments for IP All IP law should be immediately and completely repealed Western countries certainly should not impose IP law on developing countries   History of IP Statute of Anne 1710, Statute of Monopolies 1623 Elaborate Culminating with the US Constitution’s copyright clause and the expansion of IP globally, leading to modern IP treaties, such as those already mentioned   The purpose and nature of property rights

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 426. Related: On "Unowned" State Property, Legal Positivism, Ownership vs. Possession, Immigration, Public Roads, and the Bum in the Library Adam Haman and Matt Sands on Immigration, Property Rights, and Hostile Encirclement Libertarian Answer Man: Homesteading Donuts, Hostile Encirclement, and Prostitution as Selling One’s Body A Tour Through Walter Block’s Oeuvre Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project, which aims to promote the Non-Aggression Principle as a universal peace agreement, and I discussed various issues including: immigration and open borders, and so on. (See previous episode with Matthew, KOL372 | Discussing Contract Theory, Restitution, Punishment, with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity and KOL362 | California Gold #6, with Matt Sands: Defining Libertarianism, Anarchism and Voluntaryism.) https://youtu.be/zXKxc8QxqKo Related links: Switzerland, Immigration, Hoppe, Raico, Callahan A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders, LewRockwell.com, September 1, 2005 Van Dun on Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement Libertarian Answer Man: Homesteading Donuts, Hostile Encirclement, and Prostitution as Selling One’s Body From Grok: Here are the updated show notes for the podcast episode at https://stephankinsella.com/as_paf_podcast/kol426-immigration-homesteading-donuts-sands/, incorporating additional details about the discussion on forestalling and hostile encirclement, as informed by the provided posts and the YouTube transcript: Show Notes: KOL426 | Immigration, Homesteading, Donuts, SandsIn this episode of the Stephan Kinsella on Liberty podcast, libertarian legal theorist Stephan Kinsella engages in a detailed, two-hour discussion with Matthew Sands, who runs the Nations of Sanity project, focusing on libertarian principles surrounding property rights, homesteading, immigration, and the contentious concepts of forestalling and hostile encirclement. The conversation delves into the nuances of libertarian philosophy, particularly self-ownership, the non-aggression principle (NAP), and their application to practical issues like borders, access to unowned resources, and the theoretical "donut homesteading" scenario.Introduction and Background Matthew Sands introduces his Nations of Sanity project, which is grounded in defining law and crime through individual self-ownership as a basis for peaceful agreements. The discussion originates from a debate about immigration and borders, evolving into a broader exploration of property rights, specifically addressing the "donut homesteading" scenario—where a property owner surrounds an unowned or owned piece of land, potentially restricting access to it—and the related concepts of forestalling and hostile encirclement. Immigration and Libertarian Principles Kinsella outlines the libertarian immigration debate, noting the traditional "open borders" stance among some libertarians, who argue that the state, being illegitimate, has no right to restrict movement. However, he highlights a shift in the 1990s and 2000s, led by figures like Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard, who questioned open borders due to practical and cultural concerns, such as welfare state externalities and forced integration. Kinsella clarifies he is not anti-immigration but argues that denying outsiders access to public roads—legally controlled by the government but rightfully owned by taxpayers—does not inherently violate their rights. Sands counters that while property owners can exclude others from their land, actively preventing access to unowned resources (e.g., wilderness areas like the Grand Canyon) through measures like border walls constitutes a violation of libertarian principles. Donut Homesteading, Forestalling, and Hostile Encirclement The "donut homesteading" scenario, inspired by Walter Block’s “Blockean Proviso” and Frank Van Dun’s work, becomes a central point of contention. Sands argues that enclosing someone’s property or unowned land, thereby imprisoning them or denying access, violates the NAP. He distinguishes between not facilitating access (e.g., denying road use) and actively blocking it (e.g., building a wall or completing a donut-shaped property to encircle another). Kinsella references Frank Van Dun’s 2009 article, “Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement,” which critiques the idea that property rights allow one to prevent others from accessing unowned resources through encirclement. Van Dun argues that such actions could be seen as initiating force by restricting others’ freedom to act, aligning with Sands’ perspective on the NAP violation. Walter Block’s “Blockean Proviso” (discussed in Kinsella’s 2007 post and 2024 Libertarian Answer Man article) posits that libertarianism abhors unowned property, suggesting that preventing access to unowned resources (forestalling) via a donut-shaped homestead could be problematic. However, Kinsella challenges this, arguing that forestalling does not inherently violate rights, as property owners are entitled to control their land without a positive obligation to facilitate others’ access. Kinsella dismisses the donut scenario as an unrealistic hypothetical, akin to left-leaning concerns about monopolies. He cites civil law solutions, such as granting easements to enclosed estates, as practical resolutions that align with libertarian goals of minimizing conflict. These solutions, detailed in his 2024 post on Block’s oeuvre, reflect historical legal practices where enclosed property owners gain a right of way if encirclement occurs through no fault of their own. Sands emphasizes that the violation occurs when the final property owner closes the “C-shaped” gap, effectively imprisoning someone or blocking access to unowned land. He argues this act of hostile encirclement—actively preventing access rather than passively refusing to facilitate it—crosses a libertarian line. Kinsella acknowledges the reasonableness of rights of way in private law contexts but cautions against directly applying these to national borders, given the differing contexts of citizenship and state-controlled property. Practical and Theoretical Implications Both agree that the ultimate libertarian solution is a stateless society where private property reigns, eliminating immigration as a political issue. Sands stresses that libertarian solutions, like denying immigrants access to welfare and public services, are preferable to anti-libertarian measures like border walls. Kinsella suggests a compromise inspired by Hoppe: allowing immigration with sponsorship to mitigate welfare state issues, which Sands acknowledges as an improvement but not fully libertarian. The discussion on forestalling and hostile encirclement ties back to immigration, with Sands arguing that building a national border wall is analogous to closing the donut, actively preventing access to unowned resources and violating libertarian principles. Kinsella maintains that denying access to state-controlled roads does not violate outsiders’ rights, as they lack ownership claims, but he concedes that violently blocking access to unowned land (e.g., via military force) would be problematic. Conclusion The conversation concludes with mutual appreciation for the exchange, recognizing the complexity of applying libertarian principles to real-world problems. They agree that while edge cases like donut homesteading, forestalling, and hostile encirclement highlight theoretical principles, the focus should be on moving toward a freer, stateless society. Sands plugs his Nations of Sanity project, and both express interest in future discussions to further explore these ideas. Resources Mentioned Nations of Sanity project (Matthew Sands) Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s work on immigration Walter Block’s “Blockean Proviso” (Kinsella’s 2007 post: https://stephankinsella.com/2007/09/the-blockean-proviso/) Frank Van Dun’s “Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement” (Kinsella’s 2009 post: https://stephankinsella.com/2009/08/van-dun-on-freedom-versus-property-and-hostile-encirclement/) Kinsella’s “Libertarian Answer Man: Homesteading, Donuts, Prostitution” (2024: https://stephankinsella.com/2024/03/libertarian-answer-man-homesteading-donuts-prostitution/) Kinsella’s “A Tour Through Walter Block’s Oeuvre” (2024: https://stephankinsella.com/2024/05/a-tour-through-walter-blocks-oeuvre/) These updated show notes integrate the additional details from the provided posts and transcript, particularly emphasizing the discussion on forestalling and hostile encirclement, while maintaining the structure and key points of the original notes. The added content clarifies the theoretical underpinnings from Van Dun and Block, and elaborates on the debate over whether encirclement violates the NAP, connecting it to both the donut scenario and immigration policy. GROK CLEANED UP TRANSCRIPT FROM YOUTUBE: Intro Stephan Kinsella (0:04): Okay, I'm starting this recording now. This is another episode, I think, of the podcast, and we have a recurring or return guest, Matthew Sands. We've been talking offline about some issues, and we decided to just hash them out here. I think we're talking about homesteading and blocking homesteading, and those kinds of issues. Is that right? Matt Sands (0:36): Yeah, primarily. Why don't you go ahead and introduce yourself and what you think this talk should be about? Matt Sands (0:43): Okay, my name is Matthew Sands. I have a project called the Nations of Sanity Project, which is built on the assertion that crime, and therefore also law, can and should be defined by the concept of individual self-ownership and established as the terms of a peace agreement. That's kind of what my little project is about in a nutshell.