Kinsella On Liberty

A lively breakdown of two common fallacies about selling and ownership. Short lessons on property as exclusionary rights and why homesteading and self-ownership matter. Clear distinctions between selling labor, information, and transferring title. A critique of mixing economic language with legal concepts to avoid confusion.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 394. This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast, Ep. WiM216 (Youtube channel). This is Ep. 2 of the "Stephan Kinsella Series." For Ep. 1, see KOL391 | Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, Ep. 1 with Robert Breedlove, of the “What is Money” Show. From Robert’s Episode notes: “Stephan Kinsella is an American intellectual property lawyer, author, and deontological anarcho-capitalist. He joins me for an in-depth conversation about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.” Grok summary:  [00:01:37 - 00:45:20] In this episode of the "What is Money" podcast, host Robert Breedlove engages with Stephan Kinsella to explore the foundational concepts of property rights, scarcity, and self-ownership, drawing heavily from Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. The discussion begins by addressing how property rights serve as a normative framework to resolve conflicts over scarce resources, which are inherently limited and subject to competing human desires (01:37). Kinsella explains that property rules emerge to facilitate peaceful cooperation by assigning exclusive ownership, preventing violent clashes over resources like a coconut that only one person can consume at a time (04:48). The conversation delves into the capitalistic perspective on time preference, emphasizing how secure property rights enable long-term planning and economic prosperity, contrasting societies with strong property norms, like the West, against those with weaker systems (08:37). The concept of self-ownership is introduced as the prototype of property, with Kinsella clarifying that even in a hypothetical Garden of Eden, the scarcity of one’s body necessitates property rules to avoid conflicts (13:08). [00:45:20 - 01:13:23] The latter half of the episode examines the implications of property rights in relation to inflation, state power, and societal organization. Kinsella critiques the notion of "inflation as theft," arguing that the true aggression lies in the state’s monopolization of money, which enables inflationary policies that erode purchasing power (41:04). This segues into a discussion on the nature of true ownership, where Hoppe’s Garden of Eden analogy illustrates the inherent scarcity of time and the body, forcing individuals to prioritize actions and incur opportunity costs (45:23). The conversation explores how property rights are claimed through first use or consensual transfer, with Kinsella addressing the practical challenges of defending property and the role of the state as a corrupted enforcer of norms (54:36 - 1:03:47). The episode concludes with reflections on the state’s genesis as a response to the need for collective defense and the detrimental effects of modern democratic systems, contrasting them with monarchical systems where rulers have a longer-term interest in preserving their domain (1:03:47). Breedlove and Kinsella underscore the foundational role of private property in enabling civilization and the potential of sound money, like Bitcoin, to reshape societal incentives (1:08:16). Youtube: https://youtu.be/B2a5MnWb0RU Breedlove shownotes: Outline 00:00:00 “What is Money” Intro 00:00:08 Learn about Bitcoin with Swan Private at SwanPrivate.Com 00:01:37 How Private Property Rights Resolve Conflicts Over Scarce Resources 00:08:34 The Capitalistic View on Time Preference 00:13:06 “Individual Self-Ownership” 00:21:47 Defining, “Property”, “Time” and “Scarcity” 00:39:16 Watch "Hard Money with Natalie Brunell" From Swan Studios 00:40:00 Take Control of Your Healthcare with Crowd Health 00:41:03 “Inflation is Theft”: The Dangers of a Legal Monopoly on Money 00:45:20 The Nature of True Ownership in Relation to the Self 00:54:34 Claiming Property Rights 01:03:43 Property Rights and the Role of the State 01:13:23 “What is Money” Outro From Grok: (2) Bullet-Point Summary for Shownotes with Time Block Descriptions Summary Bullet Points with Time Markers: [00:01:37] Property rights resolve conflicts over scarce resources by assigning exclusive ownership, preventing violent clashes (Kinsella explains using Hoppe’s framework). [00:08:37] Capitalism’s low time preference, enabled by secure property rights, fosters long-term planning and prosperity, contrasting prosperous Western societies with others. [00:13:08] Self-ownership is the prototype of property, as even in a Garden of Eden, the body’s scarcity necessitates rules to avoid conflict. [00:21:51] Property, time, and scarcity are defined, with Kinsella distinguishing possession (factual control) from ownership (normative rights). [00:41:04] Inflation is likened to theft due to the state’s coercive monopolization of money, enabling wealth erosion through money printing. [00:45:23] True ownership relates to the self, with time and body scarcity forcing prioritization and opportunity costs, as per Hoppe’s analogy. [00:54:36] Property rights are claimed via first use or consensual transfer, but defensibility raises practical challenges without implying might makes right. [01:03:47] The state’s role as a norm enforcer is discussed, with its genesis tied to collective defense but corrupted in modern democracies. [01:08:16] Private property is foundational to civilization, with socialism’s aim to eliminate it undermining social organization; Bitcoin could reduce time preference. Time Block Descriptions and Summaries: 00:00:00 - 00:15:00 (Intro and Property Rights Basics): Description: The episode opens with an introduction to the "What is Money" podcast and a Swan Private advertisement (00:00:00 - 00:01:37). Breedlove introduces Stephan Kinsella to discuss Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, focusing on property rights as a solution to conflicts over scarce resources (01:37). Kinsella explains that scarcity implies resources can only be used by one person at a time, necessitating norms to avoid violence (04:48). The discussion touches on capitalism’s low time preference, where secure property rights enable long-term projects, contrasting prosperous societies with those lacking such norms (08:37). Self-ownership is introduced, with Hoppe’s Garden of Eden analogy highlighting the body as a scarce resource requiring property rules (13:08). Summary: This block establishes the core concept of property rights as a normative solution to scarcity-driven conflicts, emphasizing their role in enabling cooperative, prosperous societies and introducing self-ownership as the foundational property concept. 00:15:00 - 00:30:00 (Self-Ownership and Property Definitions): Description: Kinsella elaborates on self-ownership, addressing criticisms that it implies dualism or mysticism, clarifying it as body ownership based on direct control (15:18). He distinguishes between possession (factual control) and ownership (normative rights), using Crusoe’s island to illustrate that property rights require social context (26:11). The discussion explores time and scarcity, with Breedlove suggesting time’s finitude implies scarcity, though Kinsella differentiates this from conflictability, the core of property disputes (28:53). Summary: This segment deepens the exploration of self-ownership as body ownership,掓, clarifying its basis in direct control, not homesteading. It also refines definitions of property and scarcity, emphasizing their social and normative nature. 00:30:00 - 00:45:00 (Scarcity, Inflation, and Monetary Aggression): Description: Kinsella critiques the metaphorical use of “fruits of labor” and “inflation as theft,” arguing that inflation’s harm stems from the state’s coercive monopolization of money, not literal theft (33:34 - 41:04). He contrasts gold’s inflationary mining costs with Bitcoin’s potential as a “pure money” with no non-monetary use, reducing wealth redistribution (43:31). Advertisements for Swan Studios’ Hard Money and Crowd Health interrupt briefly (39:16 - 41:03). Summary: This block critiques inflationary policies as state aggression, contrasting coercive fiat systems with sound money like Bitcoin, which avoids inflationary costs and aligns with property rights principles. 00:45:00 - 01:00:00 (Ownership, Time, and Defensibility): Description: Hoppe’s Garden of Eden analogy illustrates the body and time’s scarcity, forcing prioritization and opportunity costs (45:23). Kinsella explains that body ownership stems from direct control, not homesteading, as homesteading requires an existing actor (48:56). Property rights are claimed via first use or consensual transfer, but defensibility raises practical issues, though not implying might makes right (54:36). The discussion addresses tracing property titles, using a common owner to resolve disputes without needing pristine historical title (56:49). Summary: This segment clarifies the basis of body ownership and property claims, emphasizing direct control and first use, while addressing practical defensibility and title disputes without endorsing might makes right. 01:00:00 - 01:13:23 (State’s Role and Property’s Civilizational Role): Description: Kinsella discusses rare cases where historical claims (e.g., slavery reparations) could override current titles, though practical limitations like statutes of limitations apply (59:41). The state’s genesis is tied to enforcing property norms through collective defense, but modern democracies corrupt this role, unlike monarchs with long-term interests (1:03:47). Private property is deemed foundational to civilization, with socialism’s aim to eliminate it undermining social order; Bitcoin could lower time preference, reshaping incentives (1:08:16). Summary: This final block ties the state’s role to property norm enforcement,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 393. After a Twitter spat with Las Vegas Libertarian about IP (see here and here), I offered to have a discussion with him. I didn't make much headway, but it was a fun, robust discussion. Oh well. I tried. Related: “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism,” Mises Daily (July 28, 2010) Yet another Randian recants on IP (Feb. 1, 2012) An Objectivist Recants on IP (Dec. 4, 2009) Letter from a UK Grad Student Does Cato’s New Objectivist CEO John Allison Presage Retrogression on IP? Timothy Sandefur, “A Critique of Ayn Rand’s Theory of Intellectual Property Rights,” Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 9, no. 1 (Fall 2007): 139–61 Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward https://youtu.be/k7ebUpmAWHc

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 392. I was asked to make a guest appearance on SwanBitcoin's Café Bitcoin Tuesday today, with host Alex, where we discussed ownership of bitcoin, property rights, bitcoin maximalism, money vs. language, bitcoin and free speech, and related matters. It was also posted on their podcast feed (iTunes; Spotify; google) and I include here my segment. Related: KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender (Crypto-Currency Conference, Atlanta, 2013) Transcript: “You Don’t Own Bitcoin—Property Rights, Praxeology and the Foundations of Private Law,” with Max Hillebrand (May 23, 2021) KOL386 | Toward Anarchy with Michael Storm: IP, Bitcoin, NFTs, Digital Ownership KOL383 | Bitcoin at PorcFest: Patent Trolls, Bitcoin Ownership, the Mises Caucus and the Reno Reset Libertarian Answer Man: Self-ownership for slaves and Crusoe; and Yiannopoulos on Accurate Analysis and the term “Property”; Mises distinguishing between juristic and economic categories of “ownership”

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 390. In the second half of a discussion on Disenthrall (for Part I, see KOL389 | Disenthrall: With Patrick Smith and Larken Rose the Morality of Copyright “Piracy”), host Patrick Smith and I discussed recent changes to the Libertarian Party Platform related to aggression and property rights; see Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform. We also touched on other issues like abandonment of property. Youtube of show: https://youtu.be/5c4-nO40IGo Odysee version of entire show: Related: Property Title Records and Insurance in a Free Society, Mises Blog (Dec. 4, 2010) Homesteading, Abandonment, and Unowned Land in the Civil Law (Mises Blog, 2009) Further Thoughts on Abandonment and Alienability in Contract Theory: Discussions with Jay Lakner Left-Libertarians on Rothbardian Abandonment  A Critique of Mutualist Occupancy How To Think About Property (2019) Libertarian Answer Man: Abandoning Property on your curb for the trash man: who owns what? Some of my further thoughts that I sent Patrick via DM after the show (lightly edited): More thoughts re abandonment. I think if you pick up a stick in the forest and use it for an hour then discard it, it's now unowned again. The reason is you didn't take the steps necessary to establish a publicly visible (objective, observable; intersubjectively ascertainable) link. As far as others are concerned, it's unowned--maybe they don't know it was ever owned. Hell, when you pick it up and use it, you don't know if someone had used it previously and then abandoned it. So in your own use of an unowned thing, you yourself make assumptions about its current unowned status. Can you complain if others make assumptions about the resource if you skedaddle? Imagine someone who sells you a car and then later tries to get the car back, by saying "well I was just joking or pretending when I said you could have it". We would not let him do that, because we would look at what his words and behavior actually reasonably and objectively communicated, right? Likewise, suppose some guy owns a little lot and never develops it, and he leaves town, leaving behind a sign saying "I hereby abandon this; finders' keepers" and he puts a notice to that effect in the paper. Someone else then homesteads it and builds a home on it. A year later the guy comes back and says he wants his land back, that he was "only joking." Another example: if A owns some land and has no heirs, and he dies, then it's now unowned and up for grabs. But how do we know he died? What if he goes off to fight a war and it's uncertain, and we hear reliable reports he was killed. So eventually he's declared dead and someone homesteads the land. But then 20 years later he shows up and claims it. Why did he wait so long? One more example: A owns it and has no heirs, and he fakes his own death (for his own reasons--maybe to torment an ex-wife or a parent or to escape his enemies). So everyone assumes he's dead, and someone else, B, homesteads the land. 15 years later A shows up and wants his land back. He says he never died, he only faked it. Now as between A and B, who has the better claim? Did A abandon it, or not, by his act of faking his death, by his allowing people to believe this and act in reliance on it? Let me know how you think about these cases. If you tend to agree with me, then I think you'll see where I'm going and how it's relevant for acquisitive prescription. If you neglect your property for too long, and others are uncertain or misled, and start to use it, and you never show up to correct their misimpression, or to object to their use, you can see that over time, people would start to disregard your claim to reclaim your original title. One more thing: you mentioned title insurance. I've written about that briefly here --Property Title Records and Insurance in a Free Society. I do think this would play more of a role in a private society. So you could imagine--suppose there is a world like the one you envision, where there is no such thing as tacit or implicit abandonment. So some guy leaves town and is long lost. Someone wants to use his land but they don't know where to find him--they don't know if he is dead, if he still considers himself an owner, or what. Now in today's world, then at a certain point the owner is considered to have lost it—to acquisitive prescription or whatever (if the new guy just starts using it, then after a certain number of years his new ownership claim can't be overturned if the old guy shows up out of the blue). But imagine we don't have such a rule. So I want to use the land but am not sure whether some day some guy will show up and oust me. So what would I do? I would buy property title insurance. Some company would review the situation and issue me a policy. They might estimate that the odds are very low that the original owner will ever show up. If the guy shows up 15 years later, then my insurer either pays him a fee to go away, or, if he recovers his property and ousts me, my insurer compensates me. So even if we went with your no-implicit-abandonment set of rules, insurance services would arise to take care of this problem. Agree?

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 389. I appeared on Patrick Smith's show Disenthrall last night (July 15, 2022), along with Larken Rose, to discuss the morality of piracy of copyrighted content. Larken had posted a video earlier the same day (see below) regarding the HBO series The Anarchists, where he criticized the libertarians who were gleefully pirating the show (downloading unauthorized copies to watch for free) instead of subscribing to HBO to watch it legally. Larken is against copyright but still thinks it's wrong for people to "freeload" like this--he says it's a "poophead" thing todo. I disagree that it's wrong and mentioned this in a series of Tweets. At one point I suggested that not only is piracy and downloading not wrong, but you could make a case that a libertarian activist author who paywalls his books and doens't put a free PDF of it online is being a jerk, and Larken said something like "I take back my previous comment that you are not a commie!" But when I complimented Keith Knight for releasing his recent book online, (( Keith Knight, ed., The Voluntaryist Handbook: A Collection of Essays, Excerpts, and Quotes (2022; pdf). )) and said that I release all my work online and CC0, Larken sheepishly said he also puts most or a lot of his work online or without copyright. So does that mean he's also "a commie"? After Larken left, Patrick and I discussed another issue, so I am breaking it apart into two segments. This episode includes only the initial discussion about piracy with Larken and Patrick. For further discussion of this issue, see: KOL417: Commentary on Larken Rose, “IP: The Wrong Question”: Part 3 KOL416: Commentary on Larken Rose, “IP: The Wrong Question”: Part 2 KOL415: Commentary on Larken Rose, “IP: The Wrong Question”: Part 1 Larken Rose's books include The Most Dangerous Superstition; see his Amazon author page. Larken Rose video re Piracy: https://youtu.be/gGhT4Ip40RU Youtube of show: https://youtu.be/5c4-nO40IGo Odysee version of show: From a Facebook post: From Larken: This description is pretty funny: "At one point I suggested that not only is piracy and downloading not wrong, but you could make a case that a libertarian activist author who paywalls his books and doens’t put a free PDF of it online is being a jerk, and Larken said something like “I take back my previous comment that you are not a commie!” But when I complimented Keith Knight for releasing his recent book online,1 and said that I release all my work online and CC0, Larken sheepishly said he also puts most or a lot of his work online or without copyright. So does that mean he’s also “a commie”?" "Sheepishly"? Um, okay. But more importantly, someone choosing to give away the fruits of their OWN efforts--which you, me, Keith, and others have all done a lot of--is not the same as implying that someone ELSE has an obligation to give away for free the fruits of HIS efforts, and that he's a jerk if he doesn't. Yeah, that's kinda entitlement-mentality commie-think.  My reply: I admire my fellow libertarians, like you, who devote their time and energy and resources to promoting liberty. When someone writes a book that helps to promote or explain the ideas of liberty, I appreciate and admire that. When they make if easily available online in PDF or whatever form, so that more people can easily access it, instead of paywalling it, I admire them for doing that. When you intentionally make it hard for people to get exposed to what you consider to be important ideas about liberty, I think that's shitty. This opinion is similar to your own apparently merely æsthetic preference that people not download free information. I prefer that libertarian authors put a PDF online so that poorer people and third worlders can easily access it. I assure you this personal preference does not imply anything remotely connected to socialism or communism, and to suggest so is ridiculous. Some other comments: Sid Smith To be fair, Larken has made a career and online presence by copying and regurgitating ideas from others vastly more intelligent than him. His defense is merely a projection of that. Stephan Kinsella   Sid Smith I see nothing wrong with repackaging and spreading ideas you got from others. This is of course part of the problem with IP. Larken seems to accept a lot of the standard IP reasoning, like the idea that you "create" things and you are entitled somehow to a return on the "fruit of your labor." He speaks in metaphors and ill-defined terms like "poophead" etc. and simply assets "well I think you're a poophead if you download The Anarchists when you could just get it legitimately for a couple bucks." It's just an assertion not backed by anything, and it leans on the same reasoning that IP advocates use. He kept analogizing copying pirated files to using someone's car without their permission. No. This misses the whole point. I'm actually not quite sure why he's against IP law, given the things he said--the sneering comments about people "free-riding" -- as if there's anything wrong with this! We all "free-ride" on the past and current efforts of others. This is a good thing bout human society, not something to sneer at. Sid Smith Stephan Kinsella I fully agree with you. I see nothing wrong with it either. I didn't even mind his book. I've just always had a distaste for the guy, for the exact reason you explained. He has always used really bad analogies and metaphors that he thinks are similar, but are false equivalencies. Which, most metaphors and analogies are, there is always nuance missed through them, which is why I hate when they are used. The best part of that interchange is the puzzled look on his face when you brought up the poor African who streams something. He doubled down, which was impressive, but I feel he knew the answer, and where you were going but just didn't want to admit it. Stephan Kinsella   Sid Smith Yes, it's a weird elitist American- and rich-western-centric perspective that just wants only the rich westerners to be able to learn about liberty and free market economics. I care about liberty for all humans. Sid Smith Stephan Kinsella I think it's worse than that. I think he actively doesn't care about anyone who can't further his own narrative, it's evident by what I've seen of him being challenged. This is why I respect you within the libertarian movement. You are one of few people who built their libertarian philosophy, not based upon need to provide income, but based upon logic and reason, because, like you explained in the video, you already make income in a career separate from content. I think this is a more, pure approach to philosophy, because it removes survival bias from philosophy. I hope this makes sense, I can readjust what I mean if needed. Vince Collins Stephan Kinsella most of my ideas are from other people. Imagine not being able to share them... Stephan Kinsella   Patents “parcel up a stream of creative thought into a series of distinct claims, each of which is to constitute the basis of a separately owned monopoly. But the growth of human knowledge cannot be divided up into such sharply circumscribed phases . . . Mental progress interacts at every stage with the whole network of human knowledge and draws at every moment on the most varied and dispersed stimuli. Invention is a drama enacted on a crowded stage.” --Michael Polanyi, 1944 Erik Malin Stephan Kinsella With all due respect, I didn't like the reasoning in the debate that it isn't your problem if someone has a bad business model. Although that is true, it doesn't get one off the hook for not being a "poophead", which I define as someone who makes life worse for those around him even though his actions are legal. For example, if someone is drowning in a lake and all one has to do is toss him a life preserver, I would call someone a poophead that didn't do it for the reason that his drowning, "isn't my problem. I'm too busy reading my book." He has no legal obligation to throw it, and it isn't his problem, but he is still a poophead in my book. It is the same thing with the drive-in movie theatres that were mentioned. The people who watched them without paying made the companies change their business model to using sound from the people's own car speakers instead of projecting it. If a company had installed an amazing sound system that costs $100,000, that is no longer possible to use and a person with crappy car speakers has to suffer with those instead. The people who watched without paying have made the lives of those around them worse, even though what they did should be legal and the business model isn't their problem. Them not making the business model their problem, is why they are poopheads. Stephan Kinsella   Erik Malin "I didn't like the reasoning in the debate that it isn't your problem if someone has a bad business model. Although that is true," Correct. It is true. "it doesn't get one off the hook for not being a "poophead", which I define as someone who makes life worse for those around him even though his actions are legal." I agree. But Larken did not establish that there is anything wrong with downloading information. At most, you could argue there is a mild obligation to support and not freeload off of those whose work you support and benefit from, if you can afford it. David Kelley argues a variant of this in his book on benevolence: https://www.amazon.com/Unrugged.../dp/1577240006 . I do not disagree with this. One ought to support those who are doing good work we benefit from and want to see continue.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 388. I was a guest on Cantus Firmus, with host Cody Cook (episode released July 8, 2022; recorded July 7, 2022). We discussed IP etc. Recently re-podcast as Libertarian Christian Podcast Ep. 423. Grok shownotes and transcript below. From his shownotes: Stephan Kinsella was my guest to talk about “intellectual property,” the concept that an individual’s ideas belong to them and should be protected from free use by others through law. Stephan is a patent attorney and libertarian writer in Houston whose book Against Intellectual Property is the seminal writing on this subject. We discussed why intellectual property is not really property, why it places an undue burden on society, and how it inhibits the free exchange of culture and ideas. He can be found at www.stephankinsella.com, at the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, and on Twitter @NSKinsella Resources mentioned in the podcast: Stephan Kinsella’s Against Intellectual Property – Amazon and Free from the Mises Institute Stephan’s Soho forum debate Abolish Copyrights and Patents? RiP: A Remix Manifesto – Amazon Video and Free on Youtube Richard Stallman’s book Free Software, Free Society Not discussed in the podcast, but relevant to this discussion, is my own essay Open Source Jesus: A Manifesto for a Liberated Church See also “Libertarians and the Catholic Church on Intellectual Property Laws” (2012) and KOL243 | Libertarian Christians Podcast with Norman Horn: Intellectual Property. https://youtu.be/SHOSK-i9q2I Grok shownotes: Show Notes for Cantus Firmus Podcast Episode with Stephan Kinsella Introduction and Background Topic: Guest Introduction and Motivation for Discussing Intellectual Property [0:08] Cody Cook introduces the podcast and guest Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and libertarian writer from Houston, to discuss intellectual property (IP). [0:26] Stephan Kinsella shares his dual journey into IP: his early interest as a libertarian questioning the weak arguments of pro-IP figures like Ayn Rand, and his career shift to patent law in 1992, which deepened his legal and theoretical engagement with IP. He explains how his dissatisfaction with existing justifications led him to conclude IP lacks a valid basis, prompting him to write and advocate against it, noting growing libertarian opposition over the past 20 years. Personal Experience as a Patent Attorney Topic: Ethical Practice and Career Impact [3:03] Cody Cook asks about Kinsella’s experience as a patent attorney opposing patents. [3:13] Stephan Kinsella discusses his initial hesitation to write critically about patents due to career concerns, but found it enhanced his credibility with clients, who valued his expertise over his views. He distinguishes between patent prosecution (helping acquire patents) and litigation (suing or defending infringement), deeming only offensive litigation illegitimate as it resembles aggression. He likens his role to a “weapons merchant” or “cancer doctor,” helping clients navigate a flawed system defensively, though he finds it increasingly distasteful as a “fraudulent sham.” Defining Intellectual Property and Its Issues Topic: Overview of Intellectual Property and Its Origins [7:44] Cody Cook seeks clarification on why IP isn’t real property, assuming listener familiarity. [8:13] Stephan Kinsella explains IP as a complex, intentionally obscure field, with the term “intellectual property” as propaganda to counter 19th-century free-market critiques. He outlines private law’s focus on scarce resource ownership (e.g., bodies, land) via self-ownership and homesteading, contrasting it with state deviations like patents (originating from royal monopolies in 1623) and copyrights (from the 1710 Statute of Anne to control printing). He argues these are unjustified government-granted monopolies, not natural rights, undermining true property rights. Topic: Property Rights vs. Intellectual Property [8:13 cont.] Kinsella elaborates that property rights involve enforceable exclusion of others from scarce, tangible resources, impossible with intangible ideas. He compares IP to illegitimate slavery (using physical force on bodies) and labels it a “negative servitude” (veto over others’ property without consent), akin to contractual homeowners’ association rules but imposed by the state, distorting property concepts like taxation or inflation hides government takings. Universals Argument Against IP Topic: Conceptual Critique of Owning Ideas [23:43] Cody Cook references Kinsella’s book Against Intellectual Property, noting an argument about owning universals. [23:48] Stephan Kinsella confirms the book title and explains the universals argument: owning ideas (e.g., a book’s pattern) is like claiming ownership of a universal (e.g., the color red), which conflicts with real property rights. He illustrates with a red car—owning the car doesn’t mean owning “red”—and argues IP’s abstract nature undermines tangible ownership, likening it to incompatible positive welfare rights. Topic: Praxeological and Practical Property Perspective [23:54] Kinsella delves into Mises’ praxeology, viewing humans as actors using scarce resources (e.g., a spear) to shape the future, leading to a colloquial use of “property” as personal characteristics. He warns against conflating this with legal property, using the red car example to show owning a thing’s physical integrity, not its properties (e.g., color, age), reinforcing that information (e.g., a book’s text) is a pattern on owned media, not independently ownable. Utilitarian Arguments and Empirical Evidence Topic: Constitutional and Utilitarian Justification for IP [33:13] Cody Cook raises the U.S. Constitution’s utilitarian argument for patents to advance arts and sciences, asking Kinsella’s response to claims of incentivizing creation despite IP not being “real.” [34:12] Stephan Kinsella critiques the shifting IP defenses from natural rights to utilitarian claims, debunking the founders’ intent as a self-interested hunch, not empirical, rooted in British practices. He challenges the premise that law’s purpose is to optimize innovation, asserting it’s about justice and property allocation, and notes the lack of conclusive evidence (e.g., Fritz Machlup’s 1950s study) supporting IP benefits, with industry claims (e.g., $5 trillion GDP contribution) being correlative, not causal. Topic: Economic Distortions and Lack of Data [34:12 cont.] Kinsella highlights IP’s costs (e.g., billions in legal fees) and distortions (e.g., favoring patentable applications over theoretical research), countering common sense with no solid proof of net benefit. He cites the absence of patents in major medical milestones (e.g., penicillin, insulin) and CDC achievements, suggesting IP, like in pharmaceuticals, inflates prices (e.g., insulin monopolies) due to government schizophrenia—imposing regulations and patents, then criticizing high prices. Practical Examples and Incentives Topic: Real-World Impact and Insulin Example [41:17] Cody Cook cites his wife’s type 1 diabetes, where patents raise insulin costs due to monopolies, questioning if abolishing IP might slow technological progress. [42:51] Stephan Kinsella reframes the debate, arguing law’s purpose is justice, not innovation optimization, which lacks a logical limit (e.g., extending patent terms or heavy subsidies). He notes IP’s implicit tax reduces consumer spending power, potentially stifling other innovations, and cites studies (e.g., Boldrin and Levine) showing patents drag on net innovation, with examples like unpatented medical breakthroughs (e.g., aspirin, vaccines) and government hypocrisy in pharmaceutical pricing. Communitarian and Ethical Perspectives Topic: Stallman’s Open-Source and Christian Sharing Arguments [48:34] Cody Cook shifts to Richard Stallman’s view that proprietary software is antisocial, contrasting it with early Christians’ free distribution of biblical texts, asking if Kinsella resonates with these communitarian arguments or accepts contractual end-user agreements. [50:06] Stephan Kinsella acknowledges Stallman’s good instincts but critiques his confusion, rejecting copyleft as dependent on copyright and favoring CC BY or CC0 licenses. He supports voluntary contracts (e.g., no-copy agreements) but deems them impractical without copyright’s backdrop, citing high penalties’ ineffectiveness. He aligns with Jeff Tucker’s view that religious texts should be freely shared, not copyrighted, and questions paywalling non-profit libertarian works, advocating against censoring idea spread. Cultural Impact and Remix Culture Topic: Cultural Ownership and Remix Manifesto [54:31] Cody Cook references Rip: A Remix Manifesto, arguing copyright has privatized culture, asking if communitarian arguments resonate with Kinsella. [55:08] Stephan Kinsella agrees culture was once shared, now distorted by “monopoly capitalism” or fascism, blaming IP for exacerbating commodification. He ranks patents as worst for material damage (slowing technical progress, costing lives) and copyrights for cultural/spiritual harm (e.g., long terms, sequel dominance, remix suppression), citing cases like Napster’s shutdown and the close Betamax decision, lamenting lost cultural and technological potential (e.g., TikTok constraints). Closing Remarks and Resources Topic: Wrap-Up and Contact Information [1:00:56] Cody Cook thanks Kinsella after an hour, promoting his websites (stephankinsella.com, c4sif.org—Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom) and Twitter (@NSKinsella ), promising links in show notes. [1:01:24] Stephan Kinsella clarifies c4sif.org hosts his IP-focused content,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 387. This is a classic debate on intellectual property between Wendy McElroy and J. Neil Schulman† at the Libertarian Supper Club in Westwood (Los Angeles), California, in 1983. McElroy takes the anti-IP side and Schulman argues for IP. I don't appear in this episode but I thought my listeners might find it of interest. https://youtu.be/-_Nyaav6Js0 I wrote about this on Mises Daily, as “The Great IP Debate of 1983,” Mises Daily (July 18, 2011), which concerns the then recently-found audio of that debate, which was put up as a Mises podcast and is now also hosted at Mises.org. It's a fascinating listen. As the Mises blurb about it reads, "In this wonderful debate, we find the whole of the theoretical apparatus of the anti-IP case presented with precision and eloquence." This was near the beginning of the modern libertarian anti-IP movement, pioneered by McElroy and Sam Konkin (see references below). Related (by me unless noted otherwise): McElroy: “On the Subject of Intellectual Property”: this appears to match at least part of Wendy's initial presentation in the debate Schulman, "My Unfinished 30-Year-Old Debate with Wendy McElroy" McElroy, "Contra Copyright, Again" Classical Liberals and Anarchists on Intellectual Property (discussing LeFevre) The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism KOL208 | Conversation with Schulman about Logorights and Media-Carried Property “Introduction” and chapter “Conversation with Schulman about Logorights and Media-Carried Property” [both available here] in J. Neil Schulman, Origitent: Why Original Content is Property (Steve Heller Publishing, 2018) Libertarian Sci-Fi Authors and Copyright versus Libertarian IP Abolitionists Replies to Neil Schulman and Neil Smith re IP Query for Schulman on Patents and Logorights On J. Neil Schulman’s Logorights Kinsella v. Schulman on Logorights and IP Schulman: “If you copy my novel, I’ll kill you” Schulman: Kinsella is “the foremost enemy of property rights” Reply to Schulman on the State, IP, and Carson

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 386. I was a guest on Toward Anarchy with host Michael Storm on July 3, 2022. His shownotes (Youtube channel): Anarchist, Author, Lawyer, Electrical Engineer, Stephan Kinsella discusses the Economics and Morality of Intellectual Property with me. We'll get into the value, subjective and objective, of Crypto-Currencies, NFTs and other Digital things. Find out more about Stephan and dive into the large body of work he has from books to audio and video on topics from the law to economics to social issues and of course Intellectual Property at StephanKinsella.com. Continue your trip down the Kinsella information highway at Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom where you can find a growing collection of work aimed at proving the government impedes innovation and creativity with laws and taxes and regulations and all manner of interventions into our personal and economic lives. Related: A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 385. This is an audio version of my article "Goods, Scarce and Nonscarce" (with Jeffrey A. Tucker), Mises Daily (Aug. 25, 2010). Narrated by Bob Reilly. N.b.: the narrator mispronounces some words, e.g. he pronounces Menger as "Minn-jer" and causally as "casually". https://youtu.be/jINbQrRq-g0