KOL076 | IP Debate with Chris LeRoux

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 076. IP Debate with Chris (aka "Sid Non-Vicious") LeRoux, hosted by James Cox. LeRoux claims to be an anarcho-capitalist and former Randian but not a libertarian (he doesn't like labels, you see). He was recently arguing kinda for IP-but-not-really on Shanklin's podcast (see below), and contacted me  about these issues. As you can see from the "debate" it's not clear what his position is or why he even wanted to debate me, or what he really disagrees with me on, but, .... here it is. Cox did a good guy trying to moderate, but it ended up being a mess, as it always is with people that are not clear on basic libertarian concepts and not totally opposed to IP. Transcript below. Relevant links: How We Come To Own Ourselves, Mises Daily (Sep. 7, 2006) (Mises.org blog discussion; audio version) A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 [based on paper presented at Law and Economics panel, Austrian Scholars Conference, Auburn, Alabama (April 17, 1999)] “Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes,” Mises Economics Blog (June 23, 2011) (C4SIF) Hoppe, chs. 1-2 of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach The Libertarian Approach to Negligence, Tort, and Strict Liability: Wergeld and Partial Wergeld The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression The Libertarian View on Fine Print, Shrinkwrap, Clickwrap Youtube: https://youtu.be/14POluaBwqU James Cox's original Youtube: https://youtu.be/wgJOeWU1Bek Shownotes (Grok): Debate Introduction and Setup [00:00:01 - 00:01:12] Host James Cox introduces the IP debate between Stephan Kinsella and Chris LeRoux, noting their positions (Kinsella against IP, LeRoux's stance to be clarified). Cox promotes his YouTube channel and outlines rules: 3-minute opening statements, alternating questions with 2-minute responses, initial 20-minute limit, possible extension. LeRoux agrees to go first. LeRoux's Opening: Contract Rights as Absolute [00:01:12 - 00:02:13] LeRoux claims Kinsella has admitted contract rights are absolute in an anarcho-capitalist system, not subject to scarcity or rivalrousness interpretations. He argues interfering with contracts (what Kinsella calls IP) is violence, violating nonviolence principles. LeRoux yields his remaining time. Kinsella's Opening: Clarifying Positions and IP Definition [00:02:18 - 00:05:19] Kinsella requests LeRoux clarify his position, noting prior exchanges where LeRoux rejected IP labels, libertarianism, and scarcity's role in property. Kinsella affirms contract rights but argues they can't replicate IP, as IP is in rem (against the world), while contracts are in personam (between parties). He defines IP as state-protected rights in non-rivalrous resources (ideas, patterns), including copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, deeming them illegitimate as they undermine real property rights. Contracts are title transfers, not binding promises; third parties can't "interfere" with contracts, only property. Initial Back-and-Forth: Contract as Core of Property [00:05:19 - 00:08:20] LeRoux asserts contract rights are all that exist; no need for scarcity/rivalrousness. Anything voluntarily traded is property, irrelevant to others' opinions. In anarcho-capitalism, contracts include third-party arbitration. Current IP issues: tax-funded, enforces involuntary contracts. Voluntary restrictions (e.g., no file sharing) must be upheld. Scarcity is subjective/physical, individually assessed. Kinsella critiques LeRoux's incoherence, clarifies scarcity as rivalry (not abundance), defends rivalrous resources as ownable (e.g., bucket of sand). Modern IP's flaws include involuntary application beyond taxes. Debate on Rivalrousness and Property Definitions [00:08:20 - 00:12:36] LeRoux calls rivalrousness an "anti-concept," nonsensical; voluntary trade defines property. Ideas drive property; can be commoditized/contracted (e.g., oppose copyright but discuss voluntary "do not redistribute" book contracts). Kinsella rebuts: contracts don't require ownership (e.g., conditional payments); human action uses rivalrous means. Enforceable book use restrictions possible but unlikely due to piracy incentives. Clarifying Disagreements and Contract Examples [00:12:40 - 00:16:30] LeRoux questions Kinsella on contracts without property (denied by Kinsella); defines property as exclusive control/use/disposal. Fraud involves trading unowned items. Debate shifts to open interchange per moderator. LeRoux asserts self-ownership includes labor; Kinsella prefers body ownership, questions "self" vagueness. Self-Ownership, Body Ownership, and Mind Control [00:16:30 - 00:19:00] LeRoux defends self-ownership encompassing mind/soul/ideas/actions; rejects body-only distinction as limiting. Kinsella argues mind is brain epiphenomenon; ownership enables actions/secrecy without owning thoughts separately. Interpersonal conflict arises from rivalrous resources; property rules resolve disputes. Hypothetical on Third-Party Book Copying [00:19:00 - 00:21:37] Cox poses scenario: Seller sells book to buyer; buyer's cousin borrows, copies, distributes without knowledge. LeRoux: Cousin innocent if no contract/trespass; issue is access violation. Current system illegitimate (tax-funded, involuntary). Kinsella: No liability for cousin; information unownable. Scarcity subjective in goods recognition, but rivalrousness objective. Property Origins, Ideas, and Conflict [00:21:37 - 00:24:31] Kinsella: All examples involve rivalrous things; secure property via first-use/contract. Predicts no IP-like system in free society. LeRoux: Minimal disagreements; simpler solution via contracts/property without scarcity/rivalrousness. Information controllable/ownable (e.g., ideas in mind under exclusive control via body ownership). Information Ownership and Invasive Scanning Example [00:24:31 - 00:29:42] LeRoux: Own mind/ideas/memories unless violence; critiques Kinsella's organ scanning example—aggression if invasive (trespass), not copying itself. Rejects arbitrary property limits; anything voluntarily traded is property/commodity a priori. Kinsella: Distinguishes property right vs. object; rivalrousness enables conflict, necessitating property rules. IP undercuts scarce resource rights. Intellectual Property Non-Existence and Origins [00:29:42 - 00:33:42] LeRoux: No IP; all property intellectual in origin (ideas drive action). Property prior to conflict/judgment; metaphysical fact (exclusive control absent violence). Even alone on island, property exists. Kinsella: Property normative/social; disputes always over rivalrous resources. Defining Key Terms: IP, Scarcity, Rivalrousness [00:33:42 - 00:38:02] LeRoux requests definitions. Kinsella: IP as positive laws (patent/copyright/trademark/trade secret) granting monopoly on intellect creations; incompatible with libertarian property. Scarcity as rivalry (conflict possible). LeRoux: Kinsella fights "ghost"; oppose state via anti-taxation/involuntary contracts, not scarcity/rivalrousness opinions. Contract Enforcement and Arbitration in Anarchism [00:38:02 - 00:42:53] Kinsella: Contracts enforceable; questions LeRoux on divergences. LeRoux: Contracts absolute, override scarcity opinions. Tangent on Kinsella's books/copyright: Kinsella explains automatic copyright, Creative Commons licensing; not hypocritical as system-imposed. LeRoux defends working within system. Rivalrousness Critique and Multi-Use Examples [00:42:53 - 00:50:10] Kinsella defines rivalrous: one-user-at-a-time resource, enabling conflict. LeRoux: Counter with shared use (e.g., rented house to multiple, tours); owner retains exclusive control, grants limited access—rivalrousness irrelevant. Kinsella: Shared use via contract (in personam); book "do not redistribute" as co-ownership or conditional damages. Predictions on Free Society Systems and Absurd Contracts [00:50:10 - 00:52:45] LeRoux: Absurd contracts unenforced in anarchism (no damages, costs deter arbitration). Kinsella: Can't punt to arbitration; disputes need norms (e.g., neighbor house use). LeRoux: Always check contract/trespass; rejects social contracts. Agreement on Key Scenarios and Divergences [00:52:45 - 00:57:06] Kinsella poses hypotheticals: Reverse engineering invention (LeRoux: allowed without contract); downloading Harry Potter without contract (LeRoux: no violation). Kinsella: Agrees, sees alignment. LeRoux: Disagrees on full agreement; his theory simpler without scarcity/rivalrousness. Property Rights, Homesteading, and Ownership Nuances [00:57:06 - 01:03:23] LeRoux: Ownership exclusive control (fact, not right); objective/metaphysical. Kinsella: Normative/social. Tangent on children: LeRoux parents as custodians, children homestead selves; Kinsella body ownership primary, not homesteaded (actor presupposes body). Covenants, Easements, and IP as Imposed Restrictions [01:03:23 - 01:07:15] Kinsella: Legitimate contractual easements/restrictive covenants (e.g., neighborhood rules). IP imposes use restrictions without contract—aggression. LeRoux: Agrees, current system enforces involuntary contracts. Final Clarifications and Agreements [01:07:15 - 01:12:00] Cox: Agreement on no state enforcement against non-parties; disagreements terminological. LeRoux: Still disputes rivalrousness centrality. Kinsella: IP bad, contracts good. Tangent on water diversion hypothetical: Kinsella deems aggression if harms downstream without contract. Tangents on Legal System and Personal Views [01:12:00 - 01:26:04] Discussion shifts: Defense attorneys legitimizing system (LeRoux critical); oaths/licensing opposed. Influences (objectivism); labels (anarcho-capitalist vs. libertarian).