Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 368. This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove's What Is Money podcast, Ep. WiM099 (Youtube channel). We discussed legislation vs. (private) law—Centralized Law vs Decentralized Law, or as Hoppe refers to legislation, "democratic law-making". From Robert's Episode notes: "Stephan Kinsella joins me to discuss the nature of centralized law legislated by fiat in comparison with decentralized law discovered through the observation of human action across time." Youtube: https://youtu.be/msj6ReWhzkk Youtube outline/time stamps: 00:00:00 “What is Money?” Intro 00:00:08 Exploring the Meaning of Legislative “Law” 00:09:40 Possession is 9/10ths of the Law 00:16:43 Corruption in Law Making & Money Printing 00:20:30 Is Coercion Inherent to Fiat? 00:26:44 Bitcoin Replacing Fiat Standards? 00:30:00 The Basics of Human Action and Property 00:36:17 Is Bitcoin Property? 00:44:25 NYDIG 00:45:34 Does the Nature of Legal Disputes Change Under a Bitcoin Standard? 00:51:42 Custodial Aspects of the Fractional Reserve Banking System [see also my post The Great Fractional Reserve/Freebanking Debate] 00:57:49 Bitcoin Lending & the Threat of Rehypothecation 01:03:25 Does Bitcoin Disincentivize High Risk Human Action 01:08:37 Morality Under a Bitcoin Standard vs a Fiat Standard 01:18:11 Centralized Legislation Contributes to Uncertainty Related: Kinsella, “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995) Summary version: “Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010) Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter v. the Field Codes (Oct. 14, 2009) The Great Fractional Reserve/Freebanking Debate (Jan. 29, 2016) Jesus Huerta de Soto's Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, esp. ch. 1 (uses Roman law concepts to properly analyze fractional-reserve banking) KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) Paul Cantor, Hyperinflation and Hyperreality: Thomas Mann in Light of Austrian Economics

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 367. I appeared on Patrick Smith's Disenthrall channel (Disenthrall Youtube channel) to discuss and rebut—to fisk, really—an article by one "Strangerous Thoughts" from 2010 criticizing my IP abolitionism—or my "intellectual communism," as he called it. The main article is: The economic principles of intellectual property and the fallacies of intellectual communism; see also his related article The ultimate justification for natural and intellectual property. From Patrick's shownotes: I was linked an article calling my position on intellectual property communism. Let's dive in and see if I'm wrong and if we can learn something new with none other than the leader in libertarian intellectual property critiques, Mr Libertarian Heavyweight himself, Stephan Kinsella! Article in question: https://bit.ly/32d3WXZ For links to Support Us, Our Social Media, Video Platforms, Swag Stores, Discord Server, and way more check out our web site: https://www.disenthrall.me/platforms Patrick is one of the best podcast hosts/interviewers I've had, and he was excellent here. We crammed a lot of fisking into this 100 minute discussion, which was not easy since Strangerous purports to identify "17 fallacies" in my IP thought. Odyssee video: My backup video on Youtube: https://youtu.be/Rt5weZMkeI0

Stephan Kinsella, libertarian legal theorist and critic of patents and copyrights. He traces his IP views and contrasts patents, copyright, trademark, and trade secrets. He argues against Lockean and utilitarian IP justifications, criticizes trademark standards, explores market fixes for counterfeits, and unpacks NFTs, bitcoin, and what technological possession means versus legal ownership.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 365. My friend Walter Block, economics professor at Loyola University-New Orleans, asked me to give a guest lecture today (Dec. 8, 2021) for his Law and Economics course, on the topics of intellectual property. This is it. Transcript below. Youtube: https://youtu.be/PclRRN6podw TRANSCRIPT "Intellectual Property: Law and Economics: Guest Lecture Walter Block’s Law and Economics Class" Loyola University-New Orleans, Dec. 8, 2021 by Stephan Kinsella 00:00:00 WALTER BLOCK: Okay, it’s 12:37.  We usually start the class with a moment of silence, so we’ll start the class with a moment of silence. 00:00:09 [moment of silence] 00:00:12 Okay, students, let me introduce you to my friend, Stephan Kinsella who is a lawyer in Houston, working in Houston, and he is, I would say, one of the preeminent libertarian theoreticians.  So without any further ado, you’ve all read his paper, and he’ll go over it a bit and have a nice dialogue with you.  So Stephan, start. 00:00:36 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, can everybody hear me okay?  What is this course?  What’s the name of the course? 00:00:43 WALTER BLOCK: Law and Economics. 00:00:44 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, Law and Economics.  Okay, so I can touch on both.  I think what I’ll do is I’ll try to speak around 25-30 minutes, and then open it up for questions.  And if you guys have any questions while I’m speaking, I don’t mind if you interrupt me if there’s something I said that needs clarification or if I’m not clear.  So feel free to interrupt me during it.  Otherwise, you can wait until I’m done. 00:01:08 So I think what I’d like to do is kind of maybe explain how I got to my views and where the paper came from.  Basically, I started practicing law and patent law around 1993-94, and I had been a libertarian for a long time, and I had been thinking about the intellectual property issue because I was not satisfied with the arguments in favor of it by Ayn Rand and others partly because these rights terminate at a certain time, and it just didn’t make sense to me.  Like if it’s a natural right or real property right, why would it terminate?  And then how do you know what the right length of time is?  All those issues. 00:01:45 So I searched for a better argument thinking I’m a libertarian, and I’m a patent lawyer.  I’d know more about it than anyone else.  I’ll figure this thing out.  And finally I came to conclusion right around the time that I started practicing patent law that all of intellectual property law is totally unjustified.  And so I ended up writing that paper in 1999 or so, which is over 26 years now.  In the meantime, I’ve come across other arguments, other data, other ways of presenting it, and although I think the original argument is still sound.  So that’s where we are. 00:02:23 I think what I’d like to do is focus on two types of intellectual property just because of the time constraint, and those are the two most important and the two most damaging in my view, which is patent and copyright.  The other types are trademark and trade secret, and then there are some other more recent types like mask work protection for semi-conductors and database rights in some countries and boat hull designs.  And I would also include defamation law as a type of intellectual property because the arguments for it are the same, although in the law it’s not usually considered that way. 00:02:57 So let me first talk about the term.  I do think the term intellectual property is a loaded term, and it’s as misnomer, but we’re stuck with it for now and what we want to talk about it because that’s the way it’s gone.  Originally, the four main types of intellectual property, which are patent law, copyright law, trademark law, and trade secret law.  They were all separate types of all.  They had different origins.  Trade secret originated in the common law.  Trademark originated in the common law, although statutes have sort of replaced it.  Patent and copyright purely originated in the statutes and legislation, and they all have different domains. 00:03:38 I’m going to give a quick history of patent and copyright.  So you had a rough version of a proto-free market in Europe back in the 1500s, 1600s, some semblance of free trade, some semblance of property rights.  Then – and at the time, the king and the church, in cahoots with each other, could control what their scribes – what books they would print by hand.  So they could control what thought could be put down on paper and disseminated to the masses, so they had the practical ability to control thought. 00:04:19 When the printing press came around in the 1500s or whenever it was, Gutenberg’s printing press, that threatened this easy control by the state and the church of what could be printed.  So the first thing the government did was, in England, they started the Stationers Company as a monopolistic guild, which had the monopoly on printing.  So the government still could control what could be printed. 00:04:44 When the monopoly on that – when the charter ran out about 100 years later, the question was what to do now.  And so the Statute of Anne was enacted in response to that in 1709, which basically is the origin of our modern copyright law.  So they basically gave the copyright, instead of giving it to the publishers or to the printing guilds, they gave it to the authors.  But as a practical matter, the authors had to, right away, turn around and assign their copyrights to the publishers to get it published.  So it ended up – the rights still stayed with the publishers, and that model lasted until about 15 years ago when the internet and Amazon and self-publishing started disrupting everything. 00:05:29 So you had all these gatekeepers.  I mean we’re all familiar with the RIAA, the music industry, and the publishing industry, record labels, Hollywood, book publishing.  There’s this gatekeeper function.  All the publishers maintain control.  The authors usually have to assign their rights, and then they’re subject to the whims of these gatekeepers, which act as sort of like a modern version of the old gatekeeper function of the Stationers Company and the church and the crown, which was censorship basically.  So just until recently, we’ve had that model that was perpetuated. 00:06:08 So copyright covers the right to copy an original work of creation like a book, a novel, anything that’s creative.  Things that are functional, practical things like inventions, which are machines or processes, ways of doing things, those are what patent law covers.  And just briefly, trademark covers marks and signs that you use to indicate the source of goods like Coca-Cola or Nike.  And trade secret covers what rights you have when you try to keep information proprietary and secret, and someone leaks it.  Can you go to court to stop someone from leaking it further?  That’s what trade secret law covers. 00:06:57 So even earlier than the Statute of Anne of 1709, which covers copyright, you had the practice of kings granting monopolies called letters patent because the patent in Latin means – or patente means open.  So it was an open letter, which means it’s like the king writes on a piece of paper to someone who’s a court crony.  He says here’s a letter you can show to the world.  I, then king, hereby grant the bearer of this letter the exclusive right to sell this product in this region.  So he would grant monopolies, which would protect them from competition.  So one guy would have the exclusive right to sell playing cards or sheepskin or something in a given region.  And of course that means they could make a lot of money because no one could compete with them, so they could charge quasi-monopolistic prices. 00:07:48 If you’re protected from competition, you could sell products at a higher price than you could in the race of competition.  That was the whole purpose of it.  And the king would do this to get a kickback in the form of taxes or to induce these guys to collect taxes or to buy their loyalty.  So this process got out of hand, and parliament got sick of it, and parliament enacted, in 1623, a statute trying to limit the king’s discretion to grant all these crazy mercantilist, anti-competitive, protectionist, monopoly privilege grants called letters patent. 00:08:23 And they passed a law called the Statute of Monopolies, so it was intended to restrict the ability of the king to grant these monopolies, which interfere with the free market and restrict competition and make the average consumer worse off because they have less diversity of products, they have higher prices they have to pay, and so on.  But in the Statute of Monopolies, the statute retained the ability of the government to grant these monopolies, these letters patent, for original inventions.  So they eliminated most of these monopoly grants of privilege, but they kept it for inventions, and so the modern practice of granting patents for inventions emerged there. 00:09:07 And then in the United States in 1789 when the Constitution was enacted, there’s a clause called the copyright clause and section 1 – I’m sorry, article 1, section 8, which gives Congress the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing, for limited times to inventors and authors an exclusive right to their inventions and discoveries – their writings and discoveries.  So that’s the basis for copyright and patent law in modern American law is that copyright clause. 00:09:39 And by the way, just as a point of interest, most people now, when they read that, they think that the word science corresponds to the patent grant, and the useful arts corresponds to copyright because they think copyright covers artistic creation.  However, the way language was used at the time, the word science was more general.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 364. Email to Richard Epstein: Tension Between Takings Framework and IP Views This is my Soho Forum debate held Nov. 15, 2021, in Manhattan, against professor Richard Epstein, moderated by Gene Epstein. I defended the resolution "all patent and copyright law should be abolished" and Professor Epstein opposed it. Oxford debate rules applied which meant that whoever changed the most minds won. My side went from about 20 to 29 percentage points, gaining about 9; Richard went from about 44 to 55%, gaining about 11, so he won by 1.7 percentage points. Grok shownotes: In this Soho Forum debate held on November 15, 2021, in Manhattan, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella argues for the resolution that “all patent and copyright law should be abolished,” facing off against law professor Richard Epstein, moderated by Gene Epstein (0:00-10:00). Kinsella, drawing on his 28 years of patent law experience, contends that intellectual property (IP) laws violate natural property rights, stifle innovation, and distort culture by creating artificial scarcity on non-scarce ideas, using examples like baking a cake to illustrate how knowledge guides action without needing ownership (10:01-25:00). He critiques the utilitarian justification for IP, arguing it empowers patent trolls and corporate interests while limiting competition, and highlights IP’s historical roots in state monopolies, such as the Statute of Monopolies (1623), to underscore its statist nature (25:01-40:00). Kinsella’s passionate case frames IP as a harmful intervention that impoverishes humanity. Epstein, defending IP, argues that patents and copyrights are extensions of property rights, incentivizing innovation by protecting creators’ investments, though he acknowledges flaws in the current system (40:01-55:00). He counters Kinsella’s scarcity argument by suggesting that IP prevents overuse of ideas, using analogies like overfishing, and defends the constitutional basis for IP to promote progress (55:01-1:10:00). In rebuttals and Q&A, Kinsella reiterates that IP redistributes property rights unjustly, while Epstein emphasizes practical benefits despite imperfections, with both engaging the audience on issues like pharmaceutical patents and cultural impacts (1:10:01-1:30:15). The debate, governed by Oxford rules, saw Epstein win by changing more minds (11% vs. Kinsella’s 9%), but Kinsella’s arguments resonate with libertarians skeptical of state intervention (1:30:16-1:30:24). This lively exchange offers a rigorous exploration of IP’s philosophical and practical dimensions. My notes, a Grok detailed summary, and a Transcript, are below. Postmortem episode to follow. Update: See KOL369 | Soho Forum IP Debate Post-Mortem with Greg Morin. Note: Reddit forums discussing the debate. Youtube: https://youtu.be/Ep2-ohgFOys See Gene Epstein's note about Oxford debate rules at Soho Forum and the margin of error:   GROK DETAILED SUMMARY Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview Stephan Kinsella’s Soho Forum debate against Richard Epstein, held on November 15, 2021, tackles the resolution “all patent and copyright law should be abolished.” Moderated by Gene Epstein, the 90-minute debate pits Kinsella’s libertarian anti-IP stance, rooted in Austrian economics and property rights, against Epstein’s defense of IP as a necessary incentive for innovation. Kinsella argues IP violates natural rights and stifles competition, while Epstein sees it as an extension of property rights. Oxford debate rules determined Epstein as the winner by a narrow margin. Below is a summary with bullet points for key themes and detailed descriptions for each 5-15 minute block, based on the transcript at the provided link. Key Themes with Time Markers Introduction and Debate Setup (0:00-10:00): Gene Epstein introduces the Soho Forum, Oxford rules, and debaters, setting the stage for Kinsella vs. Epstein on IP abolition. Kinsella’s Opening: IP Violates Property Rights (10:01-25:00): Kinsella argues IP creates artificial scarcity, violates natural rights, and impedes innovation, using scarcity and action theory. Epstein’s Opening: IP as Property Extension (25:01-40:00): Epstein defends IP as incentivizing innovation, acknowledging flaws but arguing it protects creators’ investments. Kinsella’s Rebuttal and Historical Critique (40:01-55:00): Kinsella refutes Epstein’s utilitarian claims, tracing IP’s statist origins and highlighting its practical harms. Epstein’s Rebuttal: Practical Benefits of IP (55:01-1:10:00): Epstein counters with IP’s role in preventing idea overuse, defending its constitutional and economic value. Q&A and Cross-Examination (1:10:01-1:25:00): Both debaters address audience questions on pharmaceuticals, culture, and IP enforcement, sharpening their arguments. Closing Statements and Results (1:25:01-1:30:24): Kinsella and Epstein summarize, with Epstein winning by changing more minds (11% vs. 9%). Block-by-Block Summaries 0:00-5:00 (Introduction and Context) Description: Gene Epstein opens the Soho Forum debate, explaining Oxford rules where the winner changes the most minds (0:00-2:30). He introduces Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney opposing IP, and Epstein, an NYU law professor defending it, framing the resolution: “all patent and copyright law should be abolished” (2:31-5:00). Summary: The stage is set for a libertarian debate on IP, with clear rules and introductions establishing the debaters’ credentials and positions. 5:01-10:00 (Debate Setup and Initial Polling) Description: Epstein conducts an initial audience poll, showing 20% support for Kinsella’s anti-IP stance and 44% for Epstein’s pro-IP view (5:01-7:30). Kinsella begins his opening, briefly outlining his 28 years in patent law and his belief that IP violates property rights (7:31-10:00). Summary: The block establishes the audience’s baseline views and Kinsella’s anti-IP premise, grounding the debate in libertarian property rights theory. 10:01-15:00 (Kinsella’s Case: Scarcity and Property) Description: Kinsella argues that property rights apply only to scarce, rivalrous resources to avoid conflict, using Austrian economics and Mises’ praxeology (10:01-12:45). He illustrates with a cake recipe, showing knowledge guides action but isn’t scarce, so IP restrictions are unjust (12:46-15:00). Summary: Kinsella lays out his theoretical foundation, contrasting scarce physical resources with non-scarce ideas to challenge IP’s legitimacy. 15:01-20:00 (Kinsella: IP’s Harms) Description: Kinsella contends IP violates freedom of speech, distorts culture, and impedes innovation by empowering patent trolls and corporations (15:01-17:30). He cites examples like pharmaceutical patents raising costs and delaying access, arguing IP “literally kills people” (17:31-20:00). Summary: The practical harms of IP are highlighted, framing it as a state-imposed barrier to innovation and human welfare, strengthening Kinsella’s case. 20:01-25:00 (Kinsella: IP as Redistribution) Description: Kinsella argues IP redistributes property rights from original owners to IP holders, using a mousetrap patent example to show how it restricts others’ use of their resources (20:01-22:45). He calls IP a “total abomination” that impoverishes humanity (22:46-25:00). Summary: IP is framed as a state-enforced theft of property rights, with vivid examples underscoring its incompatibility with libertarian principles. 25:01-30:00 (Epstein’s Opening: IP as Incentive) Description: Epstein opens, acknowledging IP’s imperfections but defending it as an extension of property rights that incentivizes innovation (25:01-27:45). He argues that without patents, creators face free-rider problems, reducing investment in ideas (27:46-30:00). Summary: Epstein presents a utilitarian defense of IP, emphasizing its role in protecting creators and encouraging costly innovation, countering Kinsella’s absolutism. 30:01-35:00 (Epstein: IP’s Practical Role) Description: Epstein uses analogies like overfishing to argue IP prevents overuse of ideas, ensuring creators benefit (30:01-32:30). He defends the constitutional basis for IP to “promote the progress of science and useful arts,” citing pharmaceuticals (32:31-35:00). Summary: Epstein strengthens his case with practical examples and constitutional arguments, framing IP as necessary despite flaws. 35:01-40:00 (Epstein: Refining IP System) Description: Epstein suggests reforms like shorter patent terms but insists IP is better than none, arguing it balances incentives with public access (35:01-37:45). He critiques Kinsella’s scarcity argument, claiming ideas need protection to avoid underinvestment (37:46-40:00). Summary: Epstein advocates for a reformed IP system, challenging Kinsella’s abolitionist stance with a nuanced defense of IP’s economic role. 40:01-45:00 (Kinsella’s Rebuttal: Historical Critique) Description: Kinsella rebuts, tracing IP to the 1623 Statute of Monopolies and 1710 Statute of Anne, arguing they stem from state privilege, not property rights (40:01-42:30). He cites studies showing patents don’t boost innovation, only litigation (42:31-45:00). Summary: Kinsella counters Epstein’s defense with IP’s statist origins and empirical evidence, reinforcing his call for abolition. 45:01-50:00 (Kinsella: Refuting Utilitarianism) Description: Kinsella argues that IP’s utilitarian benefits are unproven, citing open-source software thriving without patents (45:01-47:30).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 363. I was interviewed by Caleb Brown on the topic of argumentation ethics and related matters. Recorded Oct. 29, 2021. Note: I mangled my friend Bogdan Dabrowski's name during the podcast, switching it around and Russifying it to Dobran Bogdanovitch or something like that. Mea culpa, Brother Bogdan! (some of his work is linked here: Bogdan Dabrowski, Mises’ Human Action & Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics applied to Psychology, Philosophy Europe Convention, Cryptoanarchy Institute, Prague (Sept. 12, 2015); and Praxeological Psychology, 27 February 2013)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 362. I was a guest on California Gold #6, with guest host Matthew Sands. From the shownotes: Stephan and Matt covered a wide variety of libertarian themes, including property rights, self-ownership, the Non-Aggression Principle, intellectual property, Hoppean Argumentation Ethics, Georgism, Objectivism, utilitarianism, deontology and much more. Stephan was hosted by Matthew Sands of the Nation of Sanity project (http://www.nationsofsanity.com/), which aims to promote the Non-Aggression Principle as a universal peace agreement, hosting for California Gold for the first time. https://youtu.be/_usiT5Z2JXY

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 361. A nice young man, self-described as "generally an anarchist? But also a statist (monarchist? ie 'the kingdom of heaven') in the spiritual sense" had some questions for me since he doesn't have a lot of people to bounce his ideas off of. I agreed to do it if we could record it, in case anything interesting came out of it. You be the judge. A variety of topics came up, primarily his interest in the problem of "oaths" as the root evil in the modern world, and related/other issues like the nature of contracts, usury as evil, Pournelle's "iron law of bureaucracy," Jesus, and the evils of the Uniform Commercial Code (something to do with Babylon), and Galambos. Transcript below. https://youtu.be/EEj137ADBzY TRANSCRIPT Libertarian Answer Man: Oaths: With Kent Wellington Stephan Kinsella & Kent Wellington Oct. 17, 2021 00:00:03 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, hey, this is Stephan Kinsella, Kinsella on Liberty.  This is another one of my episodes where someone asked to talk to me about something.  And I said yes, if I can record it in case there’s anything of interest to listeners.  So this is Kent Wellington who briefly informed me he’s not exactly a libertarian but just has some questions.  I don’t really know what you want to talk about, but Kent, why don’t you introduce yourself, however you want to do it, and then we can start? 00:00:27 KENT WELLINGTON: Hey there.  My name is Kent Wellington, and I just have been very anti-IP since I was a child really.  And when I realized that Mr. Kinsella was the one who wrote one of my favorite books, Against IP, I was really taken aback.  And then I was like, wow, I should reach out to him and just try to have a conversation with him because I’ve sort of been in the – what do you say – I’ve just been up in the towers on these topics for a long time, like my whole life. 00:01:14 And I’ve never – I never really get to talk about these topics with anybody one on one, and I just saw his – that he puts his email out there, so I was like, I’ll just email him, see if he’ll – he’s willing to talk to me for even a minute.  So that’s what we’re doing right now, and I have some very different takes, I guess, what I think are some novel takes but maybe aren’t, and I’d love to be proven wrong, or I just wanted to throw some things at you regarding contracts, IP, anarchism, a few different things.  Mainly, I guess my main hypothesis is – so I’m very into the quotes from Jesus on oaths, and I believe that, without – so I think that oaths are the key social mechanism of the state.  Do you – what do you think about that?  Are oaths not the key social mechanism of the state? 00:02:41 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Oaths?  O-A-T-H? 00:02:44 KENT WELLINGTON: Yes, oaths, yeah. 00:02:46 STEPHAN KINSELLA: I’m not sure I know what that means.  What do you mean? 00:02:51 KENT WELLINGTON: So oaths are – if you want to become a doctor in the US, at least a professionally recognized doctor, you have to take the Hippocratic Oath.  Others are – so our whole professional society is filled with oaths, which are really these sort of mystical activities, and our secular world is filled with these oaths.  To become a lawyer, you need to take the bar oath.  To become a politician, you just swear in.  You need to take an oath of office.  There’s a bajillion oaths you need to take in modern society if you want to partake in modern society. 00:03:42 And so Jesus – and I’m not necessarily getting religious here.  You can just say that in one of the most popular books in the world, which the Bible is, well, the biggest guy, the most important guy in the book, in the New Testament, Jesus, in his biggest speech, the Sermon on the Mount, he says take no oaths at all.  Instead, just say yes or no.  Anything beyond this comes from the evil one.  So my interpretation of that is that anything beyond you giving your word, like if I invite you to my birthday party, and I give you the – I say, hey, can you come to my birthday party, you can say yes or no, or you can say maybe too.  But anything beyond that, if I say, hey, well, will you swear on it, or hey, will you sign this contract, or hey, will you blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.  To me, that’s opening the door.  That’s exactly what Jesus was saying.  It’s opening the door for bad things to happen. 00:04:49 And to me, it’s what is the root cause of – it’s the potential root cause of all the bad things that happen with the state because – so like Jesus says, anything beyond this, anything beyond a verbal yes or no, it basically invokes – as I mentioned to you in an email, I’m also – I – so have you heard of Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy? 00:05:25 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Vaguely, but I don’t really remember. 00:05:28 KENT WELLINGTON: So he – so the law states that in any organization, over time, the bureaucracy will overtake the main organizational mission.  So when you swear an oath or you have a contract or something, there’s always a third party that basically you’re acknowledging an elevated third party that is, at least on a long enough timespan, is going to corrupt things.  And so to me, IP – so if – so IP is a form of a contract.  I mean it’s a contract.  If I have in my – I mean I just see that whole entire concept of IP as BS. 00:06:32 But let’s say I have my little idea, whether it’s a drawing.  Let’s say it’s a drawing, and I just go to the government, and we have a contract.  You could call it an oath where they’re going to protect my work.  They’re going to monopolize my work.  So to me, Jesus – I’m like – when I realized that Jesus said this because I had never heard that in a – I grew up in church.  I’ve never heard that before, heard him say that.  To me, that’s like – Jesus is the ultimate – he’s an anarchist in a sense, but he’s also, of course, a total statist, monarchist because he advocates for the kingdom of heaven and all these things, royal terms and things.  But I was really blown away that he just prescribes so clearly this way to… 00:07:41 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, so I think we would need a definition of oath because you’re using it by examples, and you’re even including – I think it’s a stretch to include it – to call the IP grant an oath or even a contract with the government.  It seems to me what you’re getting at is – and I imagine there’s lots of analysis of Jesus’ comments there, which I’m unfamiliar with.  But I would assume he’s against oaths because oaths typically show allegiance to some kind of authority.  And that gets close to having a false god.  You should only worship God.  You shouldn’t worship the state or the king.  So I would imagine that the prohibition on oaths has something to do with that.  I don’t know.  It’s just a guess. 00:08:33 But I don’t really know the clear distinction between making an oath and just saying yes or no.  I mean yes or no could be a contract.  Contracts are different than oaths, I would think.  But I mean the standard libertarian idea is that the state exists, is criminal, but the reason it exists is because it’s the rule of the majority by the minority.  How does the minority get away with it?  They get away with it because they basically have the majority convinced of their authority and their legitimacy, and they do this from a variety of ways.  They bribe them.  They brainwash them.  They propagandize them. 00:09:11 And they get them to say the Pledge of Allegiance, which is like an oath, and lawyers have to take an oath, and everyone has to start treating the Constitution as this thing of – and then even the social contract idea is – a little bit sneaks this in because even if you’re not a congressman or a politician or a lawyer or a doctor, they say that you’ve taken an oath to the Constitution even though you never did because by living here you agreed to live under the Constitution.  And they make you say the Pledge of Allegiance, so they sort of ingrain in everyone this idea that we all have this obligation or duty to the Constitution and thus to the state. 00:09:49 KENT WELLINGTON: Totally. 00:09:50 STEPHAN KINSELLA: So I think that’s one way they – that the government or the state maintains control and keeps the population docile and following their orders.  I suppose you could bring in this idea of oaths as part of the description of what goes on there, and maybe Jesus had some wise things to say about the danger of oaths that you could build on in that analysis, but that’s all I know about that. 00:10:18 KENT WELLINGTON: Okay.  I also want to point out that later on in the book of James, so James is talking about what Jesus had said, and he says remember, brothers, above all, swear no oaths.  So this no-oaths commandment is so central.  To me, it’s basically like the number-one commandment of Jesus besides the – sort of the key sacraments or something.  At least the really concrete commandment of Jesus is to swear no oaths, and to me, that’s just so plain. 00:10:59 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, I mean I suppose – I mean I think it seems at least compatible with the libertarian distrust of the state.  I mean we don’t think that people should be allegiant to the state, and we don’t have any allegiance to the state, and we shouldn’t treat the state like God, which they want us to do.  And maybe Jesus was giving something similar.  I mean there are decent libertarian arguments, like you said earlier, that Jesus was an anarchist.  There was a guy names James Redford who has an article, “Jesus is an Anarcho-Capitalist.” 00:11:28 And I think the fact that Jesus speaks in monarchist language and has a theological conception of this hierarchy of power in the spiritual realm doesn’t contradict the possibility that his secular thinking is compatible with private law and anarchy.  I mean even the idea of render unto Caesar would not mean taking an oath.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 360. https://youtu.be/eC4g0vVepeI Isaac Funderburk sent me this email: Hello, Mr. Kinsella! I'm an economics student in Tennessee looking to get involved in the discourse around Austrian economics and libertarianism, particularly through culture change and academic organizations. Would it be possible to talk for a few minutes sometime this weekend or next week? I'm currently working with Turning Point USA as a social media manager and event organizer for a local ambassador, and I am involved with the Libertarian Party in the area. I've been familiar with Austrian economics for years now, but I had the good fortune to get an Austrian economics professor this semester and he has influenced me to pursue connections within the Mises Institute. I came across the many Mises Institute lectures and articles, and realized this is something I could get behind. I've recently spoken to Dr. Jonathan Newman, Mr. Jeff Deist, and Dr. Patrick Newman. I'm interested in understanding contract theory on a deeper level and found your lectures on intellectual property to be insightful. Would it be possible to arrange a brief phone call this week? Thank you for your time. We talked about college and what a libertarians goals should be, activism, careers, publishing, and economic and libertarian issues such as intellectual property. Related: Advice for Prospective Libertarian Law Students Reading Suggestions for Prospective/New Law Students (Roman/Civil law focus) (March 3, 2021)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 359. Related: Structural Safeguards to Limit Legislation and State Power Constitutional Structures in Defense of Freedom (ASC 1998) Randy Barnett’s “Federalism Amendment”–A Counterproposal; and related posts How to Fix the US KOL345 | Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PorcFest 2021) KOL359 | State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PFS 2021) Libertarian Nation and Related Projects Update:  See The Universal Principles of Liberty (Aug. 14, 2025) Libertarian Nation and Related Projects (cataloging various libertarian "free nation" and related projects) Update: there was already a union among the states, a loose confederation, based on a treaty, a compact--the Articles of Confederation. A convention was called to modify it. Instead the Convention staged a coup and produced a new central state in secret instead of simply amending the… — Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) December 1, 2025 "the Articles were never abolished. So the United States of America under the Articles still exists; I suggest the 13 original states revive the original USA by having their legislatures appoint its delegation members to the Congress of the Confederation; each State delegation gets one vote in Congress. Then the Congress can permit applications from the other 37 newer states and expand the size of Congress to 50 delegations. Then the new Congress of the Confederation can seek to abolish and disband the USA and the illegal Constitution." From the recently-concluded Fifteenth Annual (2021) Meeting of the PFS, Bodrum, Turkey (Sept. 16–21, 2021). For others, see the links in the Program, or the PFS YouTube channel, including the growing PFS 2021 YouTube Playlist. Additional media of the proceedings will be released presently. Also re-podcast at PFP231 | Stephan Kinsella, State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PFS 2021). https://youtu.be/hPPC9OfzHgI For a similar talk, see KOL345 | Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PorcFest 2021). The followup panel discussion later that day is here: Related: Structural Safeguards to Limit Legislation and State Power Constitutional Structures in Defense of Freedom (ASC 1998) Randy Barnett’s “Federalism Amendment”–A Counterproposal; and related posts How to Fix the US KOL345 | Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PorcFest 2021) KOL359 | State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PFS 2021) My notes are below: State Constitutions vs. The Libertarian Private Law Code Notes Stephan Kinsella Property and Freedom Society Annual Meeting Sep. 19, 2021 – Bodrum, Turkey   Joke: I’ve prepared a libertarian constitution, and I hope to cover as much of its 18 parts and 45 pages as possible in the next half hour. Part I, Section A, Subsection 1: “Definitions.” Just kidding. I’m not going to read it. I haven’t even finished it yet. My wife said “is this what you geeks think is funny?” I said we’ll see. Half of them may be relieved, but some of them will be saying “Oh damn, I wanted to hear a Libertarian Constitution read to me.” Tell Hoppe Porcfest choking joke. I’m going to talk about the idea of constitutions and libertarianism—whether the idea makes sense at all. Since I’ve been a libertarian in the early 1980s, I’ve seen various utopian libertarian projects, many of them scams, most of them failures— [UPDATED list at Libertarian Nation and Related Projects] Tipolis—"creator, owner and operator of a global portfolio of International Cities characterized by a high degree of autonomy": Free private cities/charter cities movement Próspera—a charter city on the island of Roatán, Honduras (wikipedia; official site; Próspera's e-Governance Portal; Prospera legal code; Próspera ZEDE; Official ZEDE Statute, Unofficial English Translation, and Commentary) Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC)—a special economic zone in Dubai adopting common law—wikipedia; Laws and Regulations in Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC); The DIFC’s Affirmation of English Common Law into its Statutory Framework Principality of Seborga—village in Italy claiming micronation status cruise ship nations, now seasteading (Blueseed); Oceania—The Atlantis Project Same people: Project Lifeboat: “From the people who brought you the Oceania project so many years ago comes the Lifeboat project. An attempt to create a spaceship for the purposes of saving the human race from the singularity predicted by Vernor Vinge.” crazy guys homesteading abandoned oil rigs and declaring sovereignty; private justice, arbitration, and common law groups: The “Creative Common Law” project (Jamin Hubner), an anarcho-capitalist project in which I was enlisted as an advisor, only for it to later turn from “Creative Common Law 1.0: Anarcho-Capitalism” to “Creative Common Law 2.0: Anarcho-Socialism/Syndicalism” Always be wary of “Waystation libertarians” Tom Bell’s “Ulex,” or “Open Source Legal Operating System”; LiberLand, which I helped draft an early constitution for see “The Voluntaryist Constitution” Galt’s Gulch Chile, a scam that ended in disaster; the Honduras special economic zones; General Governance (David Johnston), the idea of leveraging Indian tribes’ special status to extend their federal tax-free enclaves or zones; even the Free State Project National Constitution Center’s “The Libertarian Constitution” Roderick Long’s “Imagineering Freedom: A Constitution of Liberty Part I: Between Anarchy and Limited Government” and Michael Darby’s “Draft Constitution for a Reviving or New Nation,” both at http://freenation.org/a/ Dennis Pratt https://www.quora.com/What-would-a-libertarian-bill-of-rights-look-like/answer/Dennis-Pratt-3 Bernard H. Siegen, Drafting a Constitution for a Nation or Republic Emerging into Freedom. 2d ed. (Fairfax, Virginia: George Mason University Press, 1994) See also "A draft constitution for the state in the third millennium," by Prince Hans-Adam of Liechtenstein [Update: See also these older links from my old LibertarianGuide Wiki and Links (archived), under New Libertarian Nations: The Free State Project Seasteading Institute (Patri Friedman) Limón REAL Project (current) "Sealand" and Prince Roy Principality of "New Utopia" "Oceana" Libertarian Nation Foundation's links to other free-nation projects and related endeavors and one that may actually work, Setting Sail on a Giant, Floating City] I’ve been dragooned into helping some of these as consultant or advisor— General Governance, we met with Indian tribe north of Texas; now you get a 404, as David Johnston moved on to bitcoin, after assuring me that within 6 months we’ll have a libertarian nation. Joel Bomgar, a libertarian-leaning conservative Christian businessman and Mississippi legislator. LiberLand (swam with Wit Jedlicka, the president, in Turkey) Mediterranean sea. Others I’ve forgotten. Update, June 2025: I need to update this to include others like Liberland, (( “The Voluntaryist Constitution” )) Live and Let Live, (( KOL358 | Peace Radicals Ep. 40, with Marc Victor of Live and Let LiveKOL063 | “Live and Let Live” radio show with Gary Johnson discussing IP (Nov. 14, 2010); Kinsella on “Live and Let Live” Radio: Sunday, Nov. 14. )) Creative Common Law, (( Creative Common Law Project, R.I.P. and Waystation Libertarians. )) Nations of Sanity, (( KOL450 | Together Strong IP Discussion (Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity feat Econ Bro); KOL442 | Together Strong Debate vs. Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery (Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity); KOL426 | Discussing Immigration and Homesteading Donuts with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity; KOL372 | Discussing Contract Theory, Restitution, Punishment, with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity; KOL362 | California Gold #6, with Matt Sands: Defining Libertarianism, Anarchism and Voluntaryism. )) and a new I'm working on (still secret) Often these projects involve the drafting of a new “Constitution” or some similar code or legal document. Why do we even use the word “Constitution”? The modern libertarian movement originated in the US in the 1950s with the work of Ayn Rand, and others—Milton Friedman, Leonard Read, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and we’ve always viewed the American Founding and related documents—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Statue of Liberty, The Liberty Bell—as quasi-libertarian. Consider the scene near the end of Atlas Shrugged, where wise judge Narragansett “sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on the copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade . . .’” Or “The Libertarian Constitution” by Ilya Shapiro, Tim Sandefur, and Christina Mulligan: “This was probably an easier project for us than for our conservative and progressive counterparts because the current United States Constitution is fundamentally a libertarian or, more precisely, classical liberal document. So much so that, at the outset, we joked that all we needed to do was to add “and we mean it” at the end of every clause. Others have proposed various amendments to the Constitution that would “fix” or improve it. I’ve done so myself: Reviving the Kentucky Resolution of Jefferson and give states the power to nullify unconstitutional acts of the feds. Allow States to overturn Supreme Court decisions: