Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 269. My old friend Jack Criss, former libertarian AM radio talk show host from the 1980s and now a business journalist and publisher, throws his hat into the podcast ring. He interviewed me today. His episode page is here.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 268. I was a guest on Episode 39 of the excellent podcast The Bob Murphy Show, discussing "Law Without the State, and the Illegitimacy of IP (Intellectual Property)". A few people have told me this particular discussion of IP was one of my best--thorough and systematic. No doubt aided by Bob's excellent prompting, questions, and guidance. Update: Someone on the Youtube comments asked me what essay we were discussing in this talk. I don't think we were talking about any particular article, but I would say my best, most recent and comprehensive piece is my most recent: The Problem with Intellectual Property (2025). Other relevant pieces: A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP Against Intellectual Property (2001/2008) Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society (2013/2023)  Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward (2023) You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (2023) Stephan Kinsella, ed., The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (2023) Bob and I had planned to also discuss argumentation ethics, but the discussion of IP ran longer than we expected so we'll save AE for next time. [Update: KOL278 | Bob Murphy Show: Debating Hans Hoppe’s “Argumentation Ethics”.] From Bob's show notes: Bob talks with Stephan Kinsella about the basis of libertarian law, and how we could have justice without a coercive State. They then discuss Stephan’s pathbreaking work making the case that property must be in tangible things, rendering “intellectual property” an incoherent and dangerous concept. GROK shownote summary: In this episode of the Bob Murphy Show (Episode 39), recorded in June 2019, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella discusses "Law Without the State, and the Illegitimacy of IP (Intellectual Property)" with host Bob Murphy, delivering a thorough critique of intellectual property laws rooted in Austrian economics and libertarian principles (0:00-10:00). Kinsella begins by outlining the basis of libertarian law, emphasizing that property rights apply only to scarce, rivalrous resources like physical objects, not non-scarce ideas, and argues that a stateless society could achieve justice through private law mechanisms like contracts and arbitration (10:01-25:00). He then transitions to IP, asserting that patents and copyrights are state-granted monopolies that violate property rights by restricting how individuals use their own resources, using examples like a patented mousetrap to illustrate this infringement (25:01-40:00). Kinsella’s discussion, praised for its clarity and systematic approach, leverages Murphy’s probing questions to highlight IP’s philosophical and practical flaws. Kinsella further explores IP’s economic harms, such as distorted research and high litigation costs, citing studies that show no net innovation benefits, and contrasts these with IP-free industries like open-source software that thrive on competition (40:01-55:00). He addresses common pro-IP arguments, including utilitarian claims and creation-based ownership, arguing that creation transforms owned resources, not ideas, and dismisses contractual IP schemes as ineffective against third parties (55:01-1:10:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella responds to Murphy’s questions on transitioning to a stateless legal system, the role of reputation in private law, and IP’s impact on pharmaceuticals, reinforcing his call for IP’s abolition to foster a free market of ideas (1:10:01-1:33:05). The conversation, intended to include argumentation ethics but focused solely on IP due to time, concludes with Kinsella urging libertarians to reject IP as a statist distortion, aligning with his broader vision of decentralized justice (1:33:06-1:33:05). This episode is a compelling exploration of libertarian law and IP’s illegitimacy, ideal for those seeking a principled critique. Youtube Transcript and Detailed Grok summary below. https://youtu.be/G5MIdkXeufY Grok summary: Summary of The Bob Murphy Show Episode 39 Introduction and Background 0:00 Bob Murphy introduces episode 39 of The Bob Murphy Show, featuring an interview with Stephan Kinsella, a practicing patent attorney, libertarian writer, speaker, director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, and editor of Libertarian Papers. Murphy highlights their long acquaintance through Mises Institute events and online debates, particularly their disagreement on Hans Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, which they did not discuss due to time constraints. Instead, the conversation focused on private law and Kinsella’s influential work on intellectual property (IP), with plans to revisit their argumentation ethics dispute in a future episode. Personal Journey to Libertarianism 5:34 Stephan Kinsella shares his journey to becoming a prominent libertarian legal theorist. Originally from Louisiana, he became interested in libertarianism in high school after reading Ayn Rand, deepening his interest in college and law school. By the start of law school, he identified as an anarcho-capitalist, influenced by Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe. His education as an electrical engineer and later as a lawyer at LSU, which uniquely teaches both Roman and common law, shaped his analytical approach to libertarian issues, despite having no libertarian professors and learning primarily through self-directed reading and correspondence with figures like David Kelley. Legal Systems: Common Law vs. Civil Law 20:03 Stephan Kinsella explains the distinction between common law and civil law systems. He describes Roman law as a case-based system, developed through disputes and codified in Justinian’s Institutes, similar to the English common law, which evolved through judicial precedents. In Europe, Roman law was later codified into civil codes, like Napoleon’s, making legislation the primary legal source, whereas English common law relied on judicial decisions with occasional parliamentary statutes. Kinsella notes that modern legal systems in both Europe and the U.S. blend legislation and common law, but he argues that a libertarian case law system, driven by real disputes and precedent, aligns better with justice than legislative edicts, which often lack consistency with prior law or justice principles. Anarcho-Capitalism and the Role of the State 40:36 Stephan Kinsella addresses critics who dismiss anarcho-capitalism as impractical, arguing that the state’s inherent aggression makes it unjust, regardless of its persistence. He compares objections like “who will build the roads?” to questioning the abolition of slavery by asking “who will pick the cotton?”—practical concerns that don’t negate moral arguments. Kinsella asserts that anarchism is about opposing aggression and recognizing the state’s criminal nature. He respects minarchist arguments that a minimal state might reduce aggression compared to anarchy but finds them unconvincing, emphasizing that advocating for justice doesn’t require predicting a crime-free society, just as opposing murder doesn’t assume its elimination. Intellectual Property Critique 47:54 Stephan Kinsella discusses his seminal work opposing intellectual property, arguing that IP laws (patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets) are incoherent and unjust. He explains that property rights apply to scarce, tangible resources to resolve conflicts, not to non-scarce ideas, which can be infinitely shared without depriving the originator. IP laws, he contends, grant monopolies that restrict others’ use of their own property (e.g., a factory or printing press), effectively transferring property rights without consent. Kinsella traces IP’s historical roots to state-granted privileges, like patents from monarchs and copyrights from censorship-driven publishing monopolies, which persist due to special interests and propaganda labeling them as “property.” He argues that IP stifles innovation and free speech, citing examples like lawsuits over yoga moves or book bans. Practical Implications and Incentives 1:13:40 Stephan Kinsella elaborates on why IP is not only unjust but also impractical, using the music industry as an example. He notes that artists already give away music to build recognition, making money through tours or merchandise, suggesting that IP laws primarily benefit large record labels, not individual creators. He likens IP to arbitrary restrictions, like suing over podcast formats or scientific formulas, which would hinder progress. Kinsella argues that the fear of “unbridled competition” drives IP support, as it slows replication of easily copied goods (e.g., books or drugs), but empirical evidence shows IP doesn’t enhance innovation. He hopes technologies like 3D printing will render IP laws obsolete by enabling decentralized production. Listener Questions and Future Projects 1:30:35 Stephan Kinsella answers listener questions, sharing favorite fiction books (e.g., Stephen R. Donaldson’s Chronicles of Thomas Covenant), reflecting on his legal career (no horror stories, though he dislikes patent prosecution’s necessity), and clarifying his defensive patent practice, where patents are used to counter lawsuits rather than initiate them. He disagrees with Hoppe on minor points, like argumentation ethics’ terminology and fractional reserve banking’s inherent fraudulence. On the Libertarian Party, he supports its goals but focuses on theoretical work, hoping to add an anti-IP plank. Kinsella, an atheist, respects religious beliefs but critiques state-worshipping secularism. He mentions upcoming books, including “Copy This Book” on IP, a chapter in “Dialectics of Liberty,” and a legal reference on international investment law.   GROK DETAILED SUMMARY: Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview Stephan Kinsella’s KOL268 podcast, recorded on June 9, 2019,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 267. I was a guest today on Sal Mayweather's "The Agora" podcast, ep. 48 (Soundcloud version below). From his shownotes: We discussed Craig's copyright application of the Bitcoin White Paper and whether they lend any credence to his claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto. Does a copyright application imply that CSW is actually Satoshi? Stephan also breaks down some of the torts Craig has filed against against various individuals who have said he isn't Satoshi and/or referred to him as a fraud. Can he use the courts to force individuals to recognize him as Satoshi? This is a great opportunity to learn the standard libertarian position on IP, the difference between a copyright and a patent & how it all applies to current crypto-community from the world's leading expert!

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 266. This is my appearance in Episode 36 of the Did You Know Crypto Podcast, with host Dustin. We talked "about the possibility of using patents as an attack vector on Bitcoin." As Dustin summarized in his show notes: Stephan and I talk about… What is a Patent? Differences in EU/US & China Why is it so “hallowed” Open Source Software and patents What is a “Patent Troll” Craig Wright’s patents Can Bitcoin developers be sued? https://youtu.be/_c2NxObY-O0 NOTES: Stephan on Twitter Stephan’s website History of Patents Paris Convention Patent cooperation treaty Current (2019) US /China Tarriff dispute KOL234 | Vin Armani Show: Live from London: Kinsella vs. Craig Wright on Intellectual Property KOL267 | Sal the Agorist Interview: Bitcoin, Copyright, Craig Wright Tom Woods w/Stephan Kinsella – Ep 225 “Patents & Liberty” Tom Woods w/Stephan Kinsella – “Libertarianism & Intellectual Property” Article on Nchain Hiring Patent Lawyer

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 265. This is my conversation with Jordan Head, who expressed some disagreement or confusion about my Against IP book on a Twitter thread; I offered to discuss with him, as I often do, and he took me up on it and consented to my recording it and posting it. His main hangup was my emphasis on "scarcity" and so he was thinking time was a scarce resource, so it's being "stolen" if others copy your products, etc. I think we made good progress. We briefly discussed a few unrelated issues, like Bitcoin maximalism. Related: KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender, Jul. 25, 2017 And:

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 264. I appeared today on the Disenthrall.me Youtube channel, host Patrick Smith, to discuss the trademark issues between Tim Pool and his company media Subverse, and StudioFOW which has a popular crowdsourced porn video game coming out also called Subverse. We touched a bit on bitcoin ownership, patent and copyright, defamation law, and trademark law, and related matters. Related links: Tim Pool talks Subverse, Studio FOW, and Trademarks StudioFOW "Subverse" Has Forced Me To Retain A Lawyer Over My Trademark Of The Same Name Subverse porn game kickstarter How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law Trademark versus Copyright and Patent, or: Is All IP Evil? The Patent, Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Horror Files

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 263. This is my short portion of the panel presentation "The Significance of Hans-Hermann Hoppe," from the 2019 Austrian Economics Research Conference (AERC), at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on the occasion of Professor Hoppe's 70th birth year. The entire panel presentation, plus my notes, and a link to a longer talk on similar themes, are below. Related: KOL259 | “How To Think About Property”, New Hampshire Liberty Forum 2019   “Hoppe on Property Rights” Panel: The Significance of Hans-Hermann Hoppe Auburn, Alabama • Mises Institute March 23 2019 Stephan Kinsella Kinsella Law Practice, Libertarian Papers, C4SIF.org NOTES Came across Hoppe’s writing in law school, his 1988 Liberty article “The Ultimate Justification of the Private Property Ethic.” Eventually met Hans at a conference in 1994, where I also met David Gordon, Rothbard, Walter Block, Lew, and others Hans’s contributions in a large number of fields have influenced me and many others: argumentation ethics; various aspects of praxeological economics; method and epistemology; a critique of logical positivism; democracy; immigration; and various cultural analyses. Helped change my mind about a large number of particular matters, such as the US Constitution, natural rights, and so on Eventually led to Guido and I editing a Festschrift in 2009 Presented here 10 years ago Including a large number of contributors including all of the panelists here today I delivered a 6 week Mises Academy course in 2011 on “The Social Theory of Hoppe” I’m going to focus on his views on property rights, which has greatly influenced my own ideas A more in depth talk on this last month at New Hampshire Liberty Forum, “How to Think About Property Rights”, on my podcast feed Laid out very plainly and concisely in Chapters 1 and 2 of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (1989) Only 18 pages—bears re-reading and careful study “Next to the concept of action, property is the most basic category in the social sciences. As a matter of fact, all other concepts to be introduced in this chapter—aggression, contract, capitalism and socialism—are definable in terms of property: aggression being aggression against property, contract being a nonaggressive relationship between property owners, socialism being an institutionalized policy of aggression against property, and capitalism being an institutionalized policy of the recognition of property and contractualism.” He lays out the “natural” position on property rights, and distinguishes it from property rights, the normative position. Natural position is that each actor owns his body Any scarce resource is owned by the person who first appropriated it, or who acquired it from a previous owner by contract Property “rights” mirroring this natural position are then justified with his argumentation ethics, which has been very influential and also controversial in the libertarian world Echoed in Mises, Socialism: “the sociological and juristic concepts of ownership are different.” Key to this analysis is recognizing the role of scarcity, which is inherent in human action, and which socially gives rise to the possibility of interpersonal conflict and thus the necessity for property norms to make conflict free interaction (cooperation) possible. Hans anchors his analysis in a Misesian praxeological framework, in which actors must employ scarce means or resources to achieve ends. In Mises’s praxeological view of human action, there are two distinct but essential components of human action: scarce resources, and knowledge. Actors employ scarce resources, guided by their knowledge The use of resources is essential for all actors, even Crusoe Gives rise to the “natural” position on property (what Mises would call “sociological” ownership) In society, there is the possibility of conflict over scarce resources Gives rise to the necessity of property rights But notice the concepts of property and property rights apply only the the first component of action: scarce resources. Precisely because they are scarce: that is, interpersonal conflict over their use is possible Not to knowledge Knowledge is the recipes and other information about the world that guides our choices and actions The concept of conflict has no application to knowledge Any number of actors can act on the same or similar knowledge at the same time without any conflict whatsoever This is precisely why I ultimately was led to my conclusion that all concepts of so-called “intellectual property rights”—primarily patent and copyright—are completely unjust and unlibertarian. Took me several years of study, research, and thinking to clarify my thinking on this issue, and most of it centered around understanding the crucial role of scarcity in the nature of property rights This is why, amazingly, Hans was instantly able to recognize this early on: 1988 panel discussionon ethics with Rothbard, Hoppe, David Gordon, and Leland Yeager, which has this exchange: Question:I have a question for Professor Hoppe. Does the idea of personal sovereignty extend to knowledge? Am I sovereign over my thoughts, ideas, and theories? ... Hoppe: ... in order to have a thought you must have property rights over your body. That doesn't imply that you own your thoughts. The thoughts can be used by anybody who is capable of understanding them. EXTRA NOTES If time: Hoppe on wealth vs. property: As Hoppe notes in his classic article “Banking, Nation States and International Politics: A Sociological Reconstruction of the Present Economic Order”: “One can acquire and increase wealth either through homesteading, production and contractual exchange, or by expropriating and exploiting homesteaders, producers, or contractual exchangers. There are no other ways.” Note that Hans here acknowledges that “production” is a means of gaining “wealth”. Not a source of ownership (property rights): which is only original appropriation and contract. Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value   First, as a mainstream leftwinger, his eyes were opened by the Austrian economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk’s critique of Marxism. Later, after encountering and then rejecting the logical positivism of Milton Friedman and the Chicago school, he discovered Mises and his unique approach. As he wrote in an interview in the Austrian Economics Newsletter: “Independently, I had concluded that economic laws were a prioriand discoverable through deduction. Then I stumbled on Mises’s Human Action. That was the first time I found someone who had the same view; not only that, he had already worked out the entire system. From that point on, I was a Misesian” For me I can’t imagine not having discovered Mises or Rothbard. For Hans I am not so sure “There can be no socialism without a state, and as long as there is a state there is socialism. The state, then, is the very institution that puts socialism into action; and as socialism rests on aggressive violence directed against innocent victims, aggressive violence is the nature of any state.” –Hans-Hermann Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, pp. 148-49

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 262. This is a followup to my episode KOL261 | Venture Stories Podcast Debating Austrian Economics, Libertarianism, and Bitcoin with Noah Smith. I recorded some of my impressions after the show was concluded, making observations about how it went, and so on. Listen at your own peril!

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 261. This is my appearance on the Venture Stories Podcast by Village Global, April 6 episode, hosted by Erik Torenberg: A Comparison of Austrian and Keynesian Economics with Noah Smith, Parker Thompson and Stephan Kinsella. It ended up being a bit of a debate with the other guest, Noah Smith of Bloomberg. This was a bit of an interesting episode, as I explain in the informal "bonus" episode KOL262. We ended up discussing/debating a variety of issues, such as: Austrian economics and praxeology, the business cycle, bitcoin, libertarianism, the federal reserve, anarcho-capitalism and related. By the time we started the podcast I had forgotten it was not exactly for an already-libertarian or Austrian audience, and in fact the host seemed at first (off-air) to think I was the Irish economic journalist Stephen Kinsella (see Stephen Kinsella’s I am Not), and I had forgotten it was a debate and that Smith would be taking positions opposed to Austrianism and libertarianism. My performance was a bit subpar, but I did the best I could to present Austrian views even though I'm not a professional economist. [I believe this was the show where I derisively referred to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as "Occasional Cortex," as I did also here, to the uncomfortable chuckles of the others, and they excised this from the published episode.] From the show notes: On this episode Erik is joined by Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella), libertarian writer and patent attorney, Noah Smith (@Noahpinion), Bloomberg opinion writer, and Parker Thompson (@pt), partner at AngelList. In a spirited debate, the three of them discuss the relative merits of Austrian economics vs. Keynesian economics. They start out by defining the primary schools of economic thought and explaining where each of the guests sits on the spectrum of economic thinking. They talk about the value of empiricism when it comes to economics and whether economic theories can be derived from first principles. They discuss inflation and whether centralized control of the money supply leads to better economic outcomes, as well as how one can determine these things in the messy real world. They also touch on a number of other topics, including whether it would be a good thing to get rid of the FDA and pharmaceutical patents, whether antitrust law is “unethical,” and whether the patent system is a net positive for society. Embedded: Listen to "A Comparison of Austrian and Keynesian Economics with Noah Smith, Parker Thompson and Stephan Kinsella" on Spreaker. Local copy. Related: Milton Friedman, Essays in Positive Economics Karl Fogel, The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World (see Youtube) KOL 038 | Debate with Robert Wenzel on Intellectual Property In response to one of Smith's comments about the origin of copyright, see Karl Fogel: "The first copyright law was a 1556 censorship statute in England. It granted the Company of Stationers, a London guild, exclusive rights to own and run printing presses. Company members registered books under their own name, not the author's name, and these registrations could be transferred or sold only to other Company members. In exchange for their government-granted monopoly on the book trade, the Stationers aided the government's censors, by controlling what was printed, and by searching out illegal presses and books — they even had the right to burn unauthorized books and destroy presses. They were, in effect, a private, for-profit information police force." Smith also claimed Robert Lucas and indeed many (most?) economists were for abolition of patents. I would love to see proof of this. Smith also seemed to deny that it's accepted in economics that minimum wage laws cause unemployment or that free trade is generally beneficial. Hunh? Smith seems to think that minimum wage might be justified if it only harms a few people but benefits most, without seeming to realize that the people that minimum wage laws harm are generally the very people the law purports to help: the least skilled and poor. Robert P. Murphy, The Depression You've Never Heard Of: 1920-1921 Thomas E. Woods, The Forgotten Depression of 1920 “Essentially, economic analysis consists of: (1) an understanding of the categories of action and an understanding of the meaning of a change in values, costs, technological knowledge, etc.; (2) a description of a situation in which these categories assume concrete meaning, where definite people are identified as actors with definite objects specified as their means of action, with definite goals identified as values and definite things specified as costs; and (3) a deduction of the consequences that result from the performance of some specified action in this situation, or of the consequences that result for an actor if this situation is changed in a specified way. And this deduction must yield a priori-valid conclusions, provided there is no flaw in the very process of deduction and the situation and the change introduced into it being given, and a priori—valid conclusions about reality if the situation and situation-change, as described, can themselves be identified as real, because then their validity would ultimately go back to the indisputable validity of the categories of action.”– Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 260. Libertarian Party Chair Nick Sarwark and I discuss a potpourri of libertarian issues, such as minarchy vs. anarchy, libertarian "centralism" and the Fourteenth Amendment, and applications to abortion, gay (same sex) marriage, civil asset forfeiture and the like. https://youtu.be/RZi2xDWcSGo Related links: Timbs vs. Indiana (2019)--recent Supreme Court civil asset forfeiture case Supreme Court rules against highway robbery through asset forfeiture Another neo-confederate, xenophobic racist… Healy on States’ Rights and Libertarian Centralists; Healy versus Bolick and the Institute for Justice The Libertarian Case Against the Fourteenth Amendment The Embarrassing Fawning over the Criminal State by Regime Libertarians The Unique American Federal Government Various Kinsella posts criticizing "libertarian centralism"