Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 239. Monday morning phone call, from Mar. 14, 2016, talking nonsense, obsessing over trivia, such as the possible connections between and real meanings of the expressions "money talks, bullshit walks" and "walk the walk, talk the talk". And the problem with the expression "all he cares about is money." And Jeff's idea for an article. And Praeger University and Dennis Praeger. How Millennials can improve their self-esteem by working. I make fun of college students who have time to have a marijuana source (in the 80s). Facebook Live videos versus Google Hangouts. Tucker's hot tub and whether he should put lavender into it, and if he got caught he could pretend it was already there, that some guy named "Big Jim" had done it, and if they didn't believe him we could have a trial about it. Typical meandering, silly, rambling nonsense. This was one of our morning talks, and this time I tried to record it over my iphone using the "record call" option of the "Recorder" app.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 238. At Libertopia Oct. 12, 2012, I participated in an hour-long IP panel with Charles Johnson, moderated by Butler Shaffer. GROK SHOWNOTES: In this hour-long panel discussion at Libertopia 2012, recorded on October 12, 2012, Stephan Kinsella and Charles Johnson, moderated by Butler Shaffer, debate the legitimacy of intellectual property (IP) from a libertarian perspective, focusing on patents and copyrights (0:00-10:00). Kinsella, a patent attorney and staunch IP opponent, argues that IP violates property rights by imposing artificial scarcity on non-scarce ideas, using examples like a patented mousetrap to illustrate how patents restrict owners’ use of their resources (10:01-25:00). Johnson complements this by emphasizing IP’s role in state-enforced monopolies, particularly in pharmaceuticals, where patents inflate prices and limit access, and critiques attempts to replicate IP through contracts as unfeasible due to independent discovery (25:01-40:00). The panel underscores IP’s conflict with free-market principles, advocating for its abolition to foster innovation and liberty. Shaffer’s moderation keeps the discussion lively and rules-free, prompting both panelists to address audience questions on topics like the practical impacts of IP on innovation and whether contractual alternatives could replace patents and copyrights (40:01-55:00). Kinsella refutes the utilitarian argument that IP incentivizes creativity, citing open-source software as evidence of innovation without IP, while Johnson highlights the cultural distortions caused by copyrights, such as limiting artistic remixing (55:01-1:00:00). The panel concludes with a call to reject IP as a statist intervention, emphasizing that a free market thrives on emulation and competition, not monopolistic restrictions (1:00:01-1:00:24). This engaging discussion offers a robust libertarian critique of IP, blending theoretical insights with real-world examples, and is a must-listen for those questioning the legitimacy of patents and copyrights. Transcript and Grok Detailed Summary below. For my other presentation, and for more details, see KOL236 | Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Libertopia 2012). Youtube: https://youtu.be/lTWjqn16fGk Grok Detailed Summary Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview The Libertopia 2012 IP panel, recorded on October 12, 2012, features Stephan Kinsella and Charles Johnson, moderated by Butler Shaffer, discussing the libertarian case against intellectual property (IP). Kinsella, a patent attorney, and Johnson, a philosopher, argue that patents and copyrights violate property rights, create artificial scarcity, and hinder innovation. The 60-minute, rules-free panel critiques IP’s theoretical, historical, and practical flaws, advocating for its abolition to enable a free market of ideas. 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 Panel Setup (0:00-10:00): Shaffer introduces Kinsella and Johnson, establishing a casual, rules-free format to debate IP’s legitimacy. Kinsella’s Anti-IP Argument (10:01-25:00): Kinsella argues IP violates property rights by restricting resource use, using scarcity and action theory. Johnson’s Critique of IP Monopolies (25:01-40:00): Johnson highlights IP’s state-enforced monopolies, particularly in pharmaceuticals, and critiques contractual alternatives. Audience Questions and Practical Impacts (40:01-55:00): Panelists address IP’s innovation costs and contractual feasibility, emphasizing market alternatives. Cultural and Market Arguments (55:01-1:00:00): Johnson and Kinsella discuss IP’s cultural distortions and evidence of innovation without IP. Conclusion (1:00:01-1:00:24): The panel urges IP abolition, advocating for a free market driven by competition and emulation. Block-by-Block Summaries 0:00-5:00 (Introduction and Setup) Description: Butler Shaffer opens the Libertopia 2012 IP panel, introducing Stephan Kinsella and Charles Johnson with a humorous nod to his “Gandalf stick” (0:00-2:30). He establishes a rules-free format, encouraging the panelists to take turns as they see fit, and ensures logistical setup, like arranging chairs (2:31-5:00). Summary: The block sets a casual tone, introducing the panelists and the open-ended format for a libertarian critique of IP. 5:01-10:00 (Initial Framing and Property Rights) Description: Shaffer poses a question about IP arising from contracts, prompting Kinsella to outline libertarian property rights, emphasizing that only scarce, rivalrous resources (e.g., a hammer) warrant ownership to avoid conflict (5:01-7:45). Johnson agrees, noting that IP, unlike physical property, restricts non-scarce ideas (7:46-10:00). Summary: The panel establishes the libertarian framework, contrasting scarce resources with non-scarce ideas to challenge IP’s legitimacy. 10:01-15:00 (Kinsella: IP Violates Property Rights) Description: Kinsella argues that IP, like patents, violates property rights by restricting how owners use their resources, using a mousetrap patent example to show how it prevents others from building similar devices (10:01-12:45). He frames IP as a state-granted monopoly, not a natural right (12:46-15:00). Summary: Kinsella lays out his core argument, showing IP as an artificial restriction that conflicts with libertarian property principles. 15:01-20:00 (Kinsella: Scarcity and Action) Description: Kinsella uses Mises’ praxeology to explain human action, where scarce means achieve ends, guided by non-scarce knowledge (15:01-17:30). He illustrates with a cake recipe, arguing that IP wrongly restricts knowledge use, stifling competition and innovation (17:31-20:00). Summary: The role of knowledge in action is clarified, emphasizing that IP’s restrictions on ideas undermine free-market dynamics. 20:01-25:00 (Kinsella: Practical Harms) Description: Kinsella highlights IP’s practical harms, like high litigation costs and patent trolling, which divert resources from innovation (20:01-22:45). He cites pharmaceutical patents, noting they raise prices and limit access, harming consumers (22:46-25:00). Summary: IP’s real-world inefficiencies are outlined, with examples showing its detrimental impact on markets and welfare. 25:01-30:00 (Johnson: IP as State Monopoly) Description: Johnson argues that IP, especially patents, creates state-enforced monopolies, inflating costs in industries like pharmaceuticals (25:01-27:45). He critiques the utilitarian claim that IP incentivizes innovation, noting it often protects trivial inventions (27:46-30:00). Summary: Johnson reinforces the anti-IP case, focusing on IP’s monopolistic nature and its failure to deliver promised innovation. 30:01-35:00 (Johnson: Contractual Alternatives) Description: Johnson addresses Shaffer’s contract question, arguing that contracts can’t replicate patents because independent discovery makes enforcement impossible without prior relationships (30:01-32:30). He contrasts patents with copyrights, noting copyrights still rely on state enforcement (32:31-35:00). Summary: The infeasibility of contractual IP is explained, highlighting the state’s role in enforcing monopolies. 35:01-40:00 (Johnson: Pharmaceutical Impacts) Description: Johnson elaborates on pharmaceutical patents, arguing they delay generic drugs, costing lives by limiting access (35:01-37:45). He cites studies showing minimal innovation benefits from patents, suggesting market incentives suffice (37:46-40:00). Summary: IP’s harm in critical industries is detailed, with evidence that markets innovate without patents. 40:01-45:00 (Audience Questions: Innovation) Description: Shaffer fields audience questions on IP’s innovation impact, with Kinsella arguing that open-source software thrives without patents, driven by competition (40:01-42:30). Johnson adds that IP creates barriers to entry, favoring corporations over innovators (42:31-45:00). Summary: The Q&A explores IP’s stifling effect on innovation, with panelists citing IP-free markets as evidence of creativity. 45:01-50:00 (Audience Questions: Contracts) Description: An audience member asks about contractual IP alternatives, with Johnson reiterating that independent discovery undermines contracts for patents (45:01-47:30). Kinsella notes that trade secrets, unlike IP, don’t restrict others’ use, aligning with libertarianism (47:31-50:00). Summary: The Q&A clarifies why contracts can’t replace IP, reinforcing the panel’s anti-IP stance. 50:01-55:00 (Cultural and Economic Impacts) Description: Johnson discusses copyright’s cultural distortions, like limiting fan fiction or remixing, stifling creativity (50:01-52:45). Kinsella adds that IP’s economic costs, like litigation, outweigh benefits, citing fashion’s success without IP (52:46-55:00). Summary: IP’s negative impact on culture and economics is highlighted, advocating for a free market of ideas. 55:01-1:00:00 (Market Alternatives and Wrap-Up) Description: Kinsella emphasizes market alternatives like first-mover advantages, citing J.K. Rowling’s success without needing IP (55:01-57:45). Johnson argues that competition, not monopolies, drives progress, urging IP abolition (57:46-1:00:00). Summary: The panel showcases IP-free market success, building momentum for their call to abolish IP. 1:00:01-1:00:24 (Conclusion) Description: Shaffer closes,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 237. At Libertopia 2012, I delivered a 45-minute talk , "Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP," the slides for which are below. I spoke for 45 minutes—well, 40, then the last 5 were taken up by a question from J. Neil Schulman—but only covered the first 25 slides. For more details, see Part 1, at KOL236 | Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Libertopia 2012). Grok shownotes summary: In this follow-up podcast, KOL237, recorded on October 18, 2012, Stephan Kinsella continues his Libertopia 2012 lecture, “Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP,” covering additional fallacious pro-IP arguments not addressed in Part 1 (KOL236) due to time constraints (0:00-10:00). As a libertarian patent attorney, Kinsella systematically debunks arguments like IP being justified by its inclusion in the U.S. Constitution, the claim that IP infringement is theft or piracy, and the notion that creators deserve rewards for their labor, arguing these misapply property rights to non-scarce ideas, creating artificial scarcity that stifles innovation (10:01-30:00). Using examples like J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter franchise, he illustrates how markets reward creators without IP, emphasizing that patents and copyrights are state-granted monopolies that violate natural property rights and hinder competition. Kinsella further critiques arguments that IP is a contract or protects against unfair competition, clarifying that IP imposes real rights against the world, not consensual obligations, and that copying is legitimate market behavior, not theft (30:01-50:00). He addresses the “tragedy of the commons” analogy for ideas, refuting claims that ideas need protection to prevent overuse, and discusses practical harms like patent trolling and high litigation costs, citing industries like open-source software that thrive without IP (50:01-1:10:00). In the final segment, Kinsella tackles objections like the need for IP to fund expensive R&D, arguing market incentives suffice, and concludes by urging libertarians to reject IP as a statist intervention that impoverishes society (1:10:01-2:09:39). This comprehensive lecture, spanning over two hours, is a rigorous libertarian critique of IP’s philosophical and economic flaws.   Youtube, Slides, and Transcript below, plus a Grok Detailed Summary. This podcast is Part 2, covering most of the remaining 41 issues, some of which are noted below. GROK DETAILED SUMMARY Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview Stephan Kinsella’s KOL237 podcast, recorded on October 18, 2012, is Part 2 of his Libertopia 2012 lecture, “Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP,” completing the critique begun in KOL236. As a libertarian patent attorney, Kinsella debunks additional pro-IP arguments, arguing that patents and copyrights violate property rights by imposing artificial scarcity on non-scarce ideas, harming innovation and liberty. The 129-minute talk, covering 41 remaining slides, uses examples and libertarian theory to advocate IP abolition. 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 Context (0:00-10:00): Kinsella explains the podcast as a continuation of his Libertopia 2012 lecture, covering remaining pro-IP arguments. Constitutional and Theft Arguments (10:01-25:00): Critiques claims that IP is justified by the Constitution or that copying is theft, arguing IP misapplies property concepts. Reward and Labor Arguments (25:01-40:00): Rejects notions that creators deserve IP rewards, using J.K. Rowling to show markets reward without IP. Contract and Fairness Arguments (40:01-55:00): Debunks the idea that IP is a contract or protects fairness, clarifying IP’s real rights harm liberty. Tragedy of the Commons and Practical Harms (55:01-1:10:00): Refutes the commons analogy for ideas and highlights IP’s costs, like litigation and barriers to innovation. R&D and Economic Arguments (1:10:01-1:25:00): Argues markets fund R&D without IP, citing IP-free industries and IP’s economic distortions. Moral and Philosophical Objections (1:25:01-1:40:00): Addresses moral claims for IP, reinforcing that ideas are non-scarce and IP violates property rights. Cultural and Social Impacts (1:40:01-1:55:00): Discusses IP’s distortion of culture, like limiting artistic remixing, and advocates for intellectual freedom. Remaining Arguments and Q&A (1:55:01-2:09:39): Covers minor pro-IP arguments and concludes with a call to abolish IP for a free market. Block-by-Block Summaries 0:00-5:00 (Introduction) Description: Kinsella introduces the podcast as Part 2 of his Libertopia 2012 lecture, explaining that time constraints limited KOL236 to 25 of 66 slides (0:00-2:30). He aims to cover the remaining 41 slides, recorded separately to complete the critique of pro-IP arguments, with slides available at c4sif.org (2:31-5:00). Summary: The block sets the context, linking to Part 1 and outlining the goal to debunk additional fallacious IP arguments. 5:01-10:00 (Context and Overview) Description: Kinsella recaps his libertarian anti-IP stance, emphasizing that IP creates artificial scarcity on non-scarce ideas, violating property rights (5:01-7:45). He previews arguments like IP’s constitutional basis and theft claims, promising a systematic critique (7:46-10:00). Summary: Kinsella reiterates his thesis, framing IP as a statist intervention and setting up the specific arguments to be addressed. 10:01-15:00 (Constitutional Argument) Description: Kinsella debunks the claim that IP is justified because it’s in the U.S. Constitution, noting the Constitution’s fallibility (e.g., slavery) and that it only empowers Congress to create IP, not mandates it (10:01-12:45). He argues IP’s inclusion reflects mercantilist influences, not moral necessity (12:46-15:00). Summary: The constitutional argument for IP is dismissed as weak, highlighting its historical context and lack of libertarian grounding. 15:01-20:00 (Theft and Piracy Claims) Description: Kinsella refutes the argument that IP infringement is theft or piracy, clarifying that copying ideas doesn’t deprive owners of their property, unlike physical theft (15:01-17:30). He uses a cake recipe to show copying is learning, not stealing (17:31-20:00). Summary: The theft analogy is debunked, emphasizing that ideas are non-scarce and copying is a legitimate market activity. 20:01-25:00 (Possessive and Descriptive Arguments) Description: Kinsella critiques arguments like “it’s your idea, so you own it” or “IP is property because it’s called property,” arguing these are semantic fallacies (20:01-22:45). He stresses that property rights apply to scarce resources, not ideas, regardless of terminology (22:46-25:00). Summary: Semantic and possessive claims for IP are dismissed as illogical, reinforcing the scarcity-based property framework. 25:01-30:00 (Reward for Labor Argument) Description: Kinsella rejects the claim that creators deserve IP rewards for their labor, arguing labor doesn’t create property rights—first use does (25:01-27:45). He cites J.K. Rowling, noting she’d still profit in a free market without IP, via first-mover advantages (27:46-30:00). Summary: The labor-reward argument is debunked, showing markets naturally reward creators without IP’s artificial monopolies. 30:01-35:00 (Contractual Argument) Description: Kinsella critiques the idea that IP is a contract, noting that IP imposes real rights against the world, not consensual obligations (30:01-32:30). He contrasts this with actual contracts, like movie theater agreements, which don’t bind third parties (32:31-35:00). Summary: The contractual justification for IP is refuted, clarifying IP’s overreach beyond voluntary agreements. 35:01-40:00 (Fairness and Competition Arguments) Description: Kinsella dismisses claims that IP protects against unfair competition, arguing that copying is legitimate market behavior, not unfair (35:01-37:45). He uses open-source software to show competition drives innovation, not protectionism (37:46-40:00). Summary: Fairness arguments are rejected, emphasizing that emulation is essential to free-market competition and innovation. 40:01-45:00 (Commerce Department Studies) Description: Kinsella critiques pro-IP studies, like those from the Commerce Department, claiming IP boosts the economy, arguing they’re biased and ignore costs like litigation (40:01-42:30). He notes IP-free industries thrive, undermining study claims (42:31-45:00). Summary: Economic arguments for IP are challenged, highlighting flawed studies and the success of markets without IP. 45:01-50:00 (Free-Rider and Public Goods Arguments) Description: Kinsella refutes the free-rider argument, where IP prevents others from benefiting without paying, arguing markets handle this via pricing and innovation (45:01-47:30). He dismisses ideas as public goods needing protection, as they’re non-scarce (47:31-50:00). Summary: Free-rider and public goods arguments are debunked, showing markets naturally address these without IP. 50:01-55:00 (Tragedy of the Commons Analogy) Description: Kinsella critiques the “tragedy of the commons” analogy for ideas, arguing that ideas, unlike physical commons, are not depleted by use (50:01-52:45). He emphasizes that sharing ideas enhances wealth, not diminishes it (52:46-55:00). Summary: The commons analogy is rejected, reinforcing that ideas’ non-scarcity makes IP protection unnecessary and harmful. 55:01-1:00:00 (Practical Harms of IP) Description: Kinsella details IP’s harms,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 236. [Update: a transcript is now available.] At Libertopia 2012, I delivered a 45-minute talk , "Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP" (Oct. 12, 2012), the slides for which are below. I spoke for 45 minutes—well, 40, then the last 5 were taken up by a question from J. Neil Schulman—but only covered the first 25 slides. I covered most of the remaining 41 in a separate recording, Part 2: KOL237. Grok summary: In this lecture delivered at Libertopia 2012, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella systematically dismantles common arguments for intellectual property (IP), particularly patents and copyrights, asserting they are incompatible with libertarian principles and free-market dynamics (0:00-5:00). Kinsella begins by outlining the libertarian property rights framework, rooted in Austrian economics, which assigns ownership to scarce, rivalrous resources to avoid conflict, contrasting this with ideas, which are non-scarce and should be freely shared (5:01-15:00). He critiques fallacious pro-IP arguments—such as the utilitarian claim that IP incentivizes innovation, the natural rights argument tying ownership to creation, and the notion that IP is a contract—using examples like a cake recipe to show that knowledge guides action without needing ownership (15:01-25:00). Kinsella argues that IP creates artificial scarcity, stifles competition, and redistributes property rights, harming innovation and liberty. Kinsella further debunks specific pro-IP arguments, such as the idea that creators deserve rewards for their labor or that IP protects against theft, clarifying that copying ideas is not stealing but a natural part of learning and competition (25:01-35:00). He addresses the historical roots of IP in state-granted monopolies, like the Statute of Monopolies (1623), and its practical flaws, including high litigation costs and barriers to innovation, citing industries like open-source software that thrive without IP (35:01-45:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella responds to audience questions on alternatives like trade secrets, the impact of IP on pharmaceuticals, and libertarian strategies to oppose IP, reinforcing his call for abolition to foster a free market of ideas (45:01-54:30). He concludes by urging libertarians to reject IP as a statist intervention, advocating for intellectual freedom to drive prosperity (54:31-54:42). This lecture is a concise, hard-hitting critique of IP’s intellectual and practical failures. Detailed Grok Summary below At Libertopia, I also participated in an hour-long IP panel with Charles Johnson, moderated by Butler Shaffer. It is presented in Part 3, KOL238. Grok detailed summary Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview Stephan Kinsella’s Libertopia 2012 lecture, “Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP,” critiques the philosophical and practical justifications for intellectual property (IP), arguing that patents and copyrights violate libertarian property rights and hinder innovation. Drawing on Austrian economics, Kinsella debunks pro-IP arguments, from utilitarian incentives to natural rights claims, advocating for IP’s abolition to enable a free market of ideas. The 54-minute talk, followed by a Q&A, uses clear examples and libertarian principles to make a compelling case. 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 Libertarian Context (0:00-5:00): Kinsella introduces his anti-IP stance, framing the lecture as a libertarian critique of fallacious pro-IP arguments. Property Rights and Scarcity (5:01-15:00): Explains that property rights apply to scarce resources, not ideas, using Austrian economics to show IP’s incompatibility with liberty. Debunking Utilitarian and Natural Rights Arguments (15:01-25:00): Critiques claims that IP incentivizes innovation or that creators own ideas, arguing IP creates artificial scarcity. Refuting Reward and Theft Arguments (25:01-35:00): Rejects notions that creators deserve IP rewards or that copying is theft, emphasizing learning’s role in competition. Historical and Practical Flaws of IP (35:01-45:00): Traces IP’s statist origins and highlights its inefficiencies, like litigation, contrasting with IP-free industries. Q&A: Alternatives and Impacts (45:01-54:30): Addresses trade secrets, pharmaceuticals, and anti-IP strategies, reinforcing the case for abolition. Conclusion (54:31-54:42): Urges libertarians to reject IP, promoting a free market of ideas for innovation and liberty. Block-by-Block Summaries 0:00-5:00 (Introduction and Context) Description: Kinsella opens at Libertopia 2012, introducing himself as a libertarian patent attorney who opposes IP despite his profession (0:00-2:30). He outlines the lecture’s goal: to debunk fallacious arguments for IP using libertarian principles, promising to cover utilitarian, natural rights, and contractual claims (2:31-5:00). Summary: The block sets the stage, establishing Kinsella’s anti-IP stance and the lecture’s focus on dismantling pro-IP arguments from a libertarian perspective. 5:01-10:00 (Libertarian Property Rights) Description: Kinsella explains libertarian property rights, rooted in Austrian economics, where ownership applies to scarce, rivalrous resources (e.g., a hammer) to avoid conflict (5:01-7:45). He contrasts this with ideas, which are non-scarce and can be shared without loss, arguing IP is unnatural (7:46-10:00). Summary: The theoretical foundation is laid, distinguishing scarce physical resources from non-scarce ideas to challenge IP’s legitimacy in a libertarian framework. 10:01-15:00 (Scarcity and Human Action) Description: Kinsella uses Mises’ praxeology to describe human action, where scarce means achieve ends, guided by knowledge (10:01-12:30). He illustrates with a cake recipe, showing that ideas guide action but don’t require ownership, making IP restrictions unjust (12:31-15:00). Summary: This block clarifies knowledge’s role in action, emphasizing that IP’s artificial scarcity contradicts the free market’s reliance on learning and emulation. 15:01-20:00 (Utilitarian Argument Critique) Description: Kinsella critiques the utilitarian claim that IP incentivizes innovation, arguing it creates monopolies that raise costs and limit competition (15:01-17:30). He cites studies showing patents don’t boost innovation, only litigation, and notes IP-free industries like fashion thrive (17:31-20:00). Summary: The utilitarian justification for IP is debunked, highlighting its negative impact on competition and innovation, a core flaw in pro-IP arguments. 20:01-25:00 (Natural Rights and Contract Arguments) Description: Kinsella refutes the natural rights argument that creators own their ideas, using a marble statue example to show creation transforms owned resources, not ideas (20:01-22:45). He dismisses the idea that IP is a contract, as it binds non-parties, violating libertarian principles (22:46-25:00). Summary: This block dismantles natural rights and contractual justifications for IP, showing they misapply property concepts and infringe on freedom. 25:01-30:00 (Reward-Based Arguments) Description: Kinsella critiques the argument that creators deserve IP rewards for their labor, arguing labor doesn’t create property rights—first use does (25:01-27:45). He uses homesteading land to illustrate that ownership stems from scarcity, not effort, making IP rewards unjustified (27:46-30:00). Summary: The notion that IP rewards labor is rejected, reinforcing that property rights address scarcity, not merit, undermining a common pro-IP claim. 30:01-35:00 (Theft and Fairness Arguments) Description: Kinsella refutes the claim that copying ideas is theft, arguing it’s learning, not stealing, as it doesn’t deprive the original owner (30:01-32:30). He dismisses fairness arguments, noting that markets thrive on emulation, not protectionism, citing open-source software (32:31-35:00). Summary: Copying is defended as essential to competition, debunking theft and fairness arguments as misaligned with libertarian and market principles. 35:01-40:00 (Historical Origins of IP) Description: Kinsella traces IP to state monopolies, like the 1623 Statute of Monopolies and 1710 Statute of Anne, rooted in privilege and censorship, not market needs (35:01-37:45). He argues IP’s statist origins show it’s anti-libertarian, favoring corporations over innovators (37:46-40:00). Summary: IP’s historical roots in statism are exposed, highlighting its incompatibility with free-market principles and its bias toward entrenched interests. 40:01-45:00 (Practical Flaws of IP) Description: Kinsella details IP’s practical harms, including high litigation costs, patent trolling, and barriers to innovation, citing pharmaceutical patents raising drug prices (40:01-42:30). He contrasts this with IP-free industries like software, where competition drives progress (42:31-45:00). Summary: The inefficiencies of IP are outlined, with examples showing it stifles innovation and harms consumers, strengthening the case for abolition. 45:01-50:00 (Q&A: Alternatives and Pharmaceuticals) Description: In the Q&A, Kinsella addresses trade secrets, explaining they don’t restrict others’ use of ideas, unlike IP (45:01-47:30). He responds to questions on pharmaceuticals, arguing patents delay access, and cites market incentives like first-mover advantage as alternatives (47:31-50:00). Summary: The Q&A explores non-IP solutions and IP’s harm in critical industries, reinforcing Kinsella’s vision of a patent-free market. 50:01-54:30 (Q&A: Strategies and Cultural Impacts)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 235. This is a short video produced by the Federalist Society (Feb. 6, 2018), featuring me and IP law professor Kristen Osenga (I had met Osenga previously, as a co-panelist at an IP panel at NYU School of Law in 2011). I was pleasantly surprised that the Federalist Society was willing to give the anti-IP side a voice—more on this below. To produce this video, Osenga and I each spoke separately, before a green screen, in studios in our own cities, for about 30 minutes. The editing that boiled this down to about 5 minutes total was superbly done. see also James Stern: Is Intellectual Property Actually Property? [Federalist Society No. 86 LECTURE] Transcript below. From the Federalist Society's shownotes on their Facebook post: Why does the government protect patents, copyrights, and trademarks? Should it? Kristen Osenga and Stephan Kinsella explore the concept of intellectual property and debate its effect on society as a whole. Kristen Osenga, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, and Stephan Kinsella, author of Against Intellectual Property, explore the concept of intellectual property and debate its effect on society as a whole. Differing Views: Libertarianism.org: Libertarian Views of Intellectual Property A 21st Century Copyright Office: The Conservative Case for Reform Mises Institute: The Case Against IP Law and Liberty: Why Intellectual Property Rights? A Lockean Justification The Constitutional Foundations of Intellectual Property Harvard Law: Theories of Intellectual Property I was pleasantly surprised that the Federalist Society was willing to give the anti-IP side a voice, given that many libertarian-related groups either outright favor IP or refuse to condemn it or to allow abolitionist voices. Since the dawn of the Internet in the mid-90s, the effects of patent and especially copyright law have become magnified and more noticeable. Thus more libertarians began to direct their attention to this issue. Gradually, scholarship emerged and the consensus began to shift over the last couple decades from an inchoate Randian pro-IP attitude, and/or apathy, to a interest in and opposition to IP law. It is safe to say that most thinking libertarians, most Austrians, anarchists, and left-libertarians, are now predominately opposed to IP.  (See “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism,” “The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism”, “The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism”.) Accordingly, many libertarian groups are now explicitly anti-IP or at least are willing to host speakers and writers with this view, such as: the Mises Institute, and various Mises Institutes around the world (Sweden, Brasil, UK, etc.); the  Property and Freedom Society; and others, like the IEA (see Stephen Davies' Intellectual Property Rights: Yay or Nay); the Adam Smith Forum-Russia, which had me present a sweeping case for IP abolition; and the Adam Smith Institute in London, which also has featured strong voices in opposition to IP (Adam Smith Institute: Do not feed the patent troll; Intellectual property: an unnecessary evil). FEE has featured my work and that of other IP abolitionists, like Sheldon Richman. Even the Mercatus Center has promoted strong IP reform, although not outright abolition (see, e.g., Tom Bell, What is Intellectual Privilege?). And, I've been invited to speak against IP in a number of fora, podcasts, and radio shows—PorcFest, Libertopia, Students for Liberty, FreeTalkLive, and so on. Even John Stossel's Fox show featured me and David Koepsell arguing the abolitionist side. So. This is good progress, and parallels the increasing interest in IP by libertarians and their increasing opposition to this type of law. But not all libertarian groups, sadly, recognize IP for the unjust state institution that it is. The Libertarian Party, for example, shamefully takes no stance on IP in its platform. This would be like failing to oppose chattel slavery, conscription, or the drug war in a society where these things were going on. The Cato Institute usually presents pro-IP speakers or those who talk about "reform" (see my post Disinvited From Cato). The Independent Institute has featured the pro-IP work of William Shughart (see Independent Institute on The “Benefits” of Intellectual Property Protection). Other so-called free market groups have also been bad on IP: Austrian Economics Center, Hayek Institute, Other Liberal Groups Come Out for Stronger Intellectual Property Protection. The tech-libertarian groups, like EFF, fulminate against "junk" patents and patent trolls but do not oppose IP itself. Even the tech-libertarian defenders of poor Aaron Swartz, driven to suicide by the threat of draconian copyright criminal penalties, shamefully, disgustingly admitted that he of course needed "some punishment."  And of course all the Objectivist groups are rabidly for IP (see e.g. work by Adam Mossoff). As for the Federalist Society—I did participate in an IP debate at a local chapter (Federalist Society IP Debate (Ohio State)), and their Intellectual Property Practice Group Newsletter did reprint one of my early short articles against IP (Is Intellectual Property Legitimate? , vol. 3, Issue 3 (Winter 2000)). But overall the Federalist Society has presented basically the pro-IP side (More defenses of IP by the Federalist Society; Federalist Society Panel: Undermining or Preserving Property Rights? The New Administrative Patents). I pestered them over years to include more balanced treatment in their bibliography, to no avail (Anti-IP Material Needed in the IP Section of the Federalist Society’s “Conservative & Libertarian Legal Scholarship: Annotated Bibliography”). So I'm very pleased they finally chose to present the anti-IP side alongside the conventional arguments. TRANSCRIPT Intellectual Property: A First Principles Debate Stephan Kinsella and Kristen Osenga Federalist Society POLICYbrief Feb. 6, 2018 00:00:01 KRISTEN OSENGA: Intellectual property, or IP, are rights that are granted by the government to encourage innovation and creativity. 00:00:09 STEPHAN KINSELLA: The term was originated to come up with a defense of certain types of monopoly privileges, primarily patent and copyright law, which had existed for a few centuries in the West.  Intellectual property is not property in the same sense as normal property rights because normal property rights are designed to protect scarce resources, things in the world that we could have a conflict over.  This includes our bodies and other resources in the world—tangible, material objects.  Property rights arise as a social mechanism to allow us to use these resources cooperatively and peacefully and productively with each other.  But intellectual property covers ideas and non-scarce resources, patterns which can be infinitely copied and multiplied. 00:01:00 KRISTEN OSENGA: One of the benefits of having property is the ability to keep other people out.  I can let people that I don’t want to come to my house know that they can’t be there.  And patents and copyright provide the same sort of, what’s known as, exclusive rights that private property does that you can say you can’t trespass on my invention, and you can’t copy my new creative work.  So the difficulty when we look at intellectual property as property is how do we know where the boundaries are.  But as far as what are our rights, the idea that we can keep people out—that’s exactly like physical property. 00:01:36 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Legally, the proper way to understand intellectual property rights is a negative servitude or a negative easement, and if you understand what a negative easement is, it gives the holder of that easement a right to prevent the owner of existing property to use it the way he sees fit.  And these are perfectly legitimate if they’re granted voluntarily like a restrictive covenant in a neighborhood.  But in patent and copyright, the government grants these monopoly privileges to holders of these ideal rights, and it allows them to stop other people from using their bodies or their other property as they see fit. 00:02:09 KRISTEN OSENGA: There’s a number of philosophical justifications for intellectual property, but one of the clear ones is John Locke’s principle, the idea that if you put your effort and mix it with nature, you should get property rights in a resulting object.  If you take a tree and turn it into a barrel, the barrel should be yours, and that’s the same idea with intellectual property. 00:02:33 One of the things intellectual property does is it allows you to get exclusive rights on what you invent.  And with those exclusive rights, you can either keep other people from doing it and manufacture the invention yourself, or you can license it to a patent licensing firm.  The inventor who has spent a lot of time and money in the uncertain activity of inventing can recoup some of those costs and some of those expenses. 00:03:00 STEPHAN KINSELLA: So the question is not whether a given policy or law incentivizes innovation.  The purpose of law is to protect property rights.  We have to recognize that in today’s world, even though we have copyright law, piracy is rampant. 00:03:13 In today’s 2017, artists have to deal with the fact of copyright piracy, and they have to come up with business models to work around that.  But then the question is, absent patent and copyright law, what protections would they have?  Well, first of all, they have property rights like we all do.  They have the right to own their own studio or their own printing press or their own machine shop and make inventions.  They have the right to engage in commerce and sell their goods.  You can sell tickets at a concert.  You can sell a CD if you want to.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 234. Related: Craig Wright: You Don’t Own Your Digital Stuff. NFTs Could Actually Fix That — Without Intellectual Property This is a debate on IP between me and a noted Bitcoin expert, Craig Wright, hosted and moderated by the Vin Armani show. Transcript below along with Grok shownotes. Debating Wright I was in London to attend the inaugural 2018 meeting of Mises UK and to hang with my boys Lee Iglody, Jeff Barr, Doug French, and Hans Hoppe, and had challenged Wright to a debate during a few twitter run-ins (still on-going); I accepted and since I happened to be in London, Wright set it up and we did it at a local studio, with Armani moderating from Vegas. After the debate Further comments appear on my Facebook post and also on the Youtube post (below). Update [7/17/19]: I had my buddies Jeff Barr and Doug French in the room watching, and after the debate, invited Craig to drinks in the hotel bar. We had an interesting, if a bit bizarre and intense, discussion for an hour or so. But in the ensuing weeks, things between us devolved on Twitter. Wright had promised to produce "proof" of patents stimulating innovation during the debate, and apparently, like with many of his promises to produce something, never came through. I pointed that out on Twitter and he eventually ended up blocking me, as well as the podcast's host, Vin Armani, who at the time was, with Wright, a fellow BCH advocate (Vin is still a BCHer but Craig has split off again with his BSV). Of course, in the meantime, Wright has amped up his risible claims to be Satoshi and has been involved in a number of controversial issues in the bitcoin/crypto community. What a character. Also: during the debate I referred to him as Dr. Wright, since he claims to have several PhDs, but now I am not sure he has any legitimate PhDs, other perhaps than one in "theology", so I should not have called him "Dr." (( Update: Grok re Wright PhDs ("In the 2024 UK High Court judgment in COPA v Wright (where Wright was ruled not to be Bitcoin's creator Satoshi Nakamoto), the judge noted Wright's pattern of forgery and plagiarism in other academic work (e.g., his 2008 LLM dissertation had 45 of 58 paragraphs copied verbatim), casting indirect doubt on his degrees. However, the court assumed his qualifications were true for the case, as they weren't directly challenged."); Wikipedia; Craig Wright, "The quantification of information systems risk: A look at quantitative responses to information security issues," Doctoral Thesis, "Charles Sturt University" (2017); 2024 UK High Court judgment in COPA v Wright (pdf), ¶¶ 565–568, 582–585, on pattern of dishonesty," ¶¶ 127–128, 393–395, 400, 926. )) That was too deferential. On the other hand, he did pay for the venue and related costs, so I was being polite. Grok Summary The debate on intellectual property (IP) law, hosted by Vin Armani on January 27, 2018, featured Stephan Kinsella arguing against the resolution that IP is a legitimate and useful institution for blockchain and cryptocurrency, while Craig Wright defended it. In his opening, Wright emphasized the scarcity of good ideas and their implementation, arguing that IP protects individual creators' rights more fundamentally than homesteading physical land, as ideas are created from nothing. He cited natural experiments in countries like India, where reintroducing IP laws allegedly led to a 60% increase in patents by startups, not large companies. Wright contrasted IP with alternatives like trade secrets, using the ZeniMax vs. Oculus case to illustrate how trade secrets create market uncertainty and slow innovation, while patents provide disclosure and clarity. He framed opposition to IP as "intellectual communism," forcing creators to share against their will. Kinsella, in his opening, defined IP as government-granted monopolies (patents for inventions, copyrights for artistic works, plus trademarks and trade secrets) that infringe on genuine property rights in scarce, rivalrous resources. He argued that property rights arise from homesteading or contract to resolve conflicts over physical goods, not ideas, which are non-rivalrous and essential to action but not ownable. Kinsella rejected creation as a source of ownership, noting that transforming owned resources (e.g., iron into a horseshoe) creates wealth, not new rights. He claimed IP hinders innovation, distorts culture, and censors speech, prioritizing justice over utilitarian goals like spurring creativity. In response to questions on legitimacy, Kinsella expanded that IP is unethical and un-libertarian, as it transfers property rights without consent, akin to theft or slavery. He criticized IP's arbitrary expiration (e.g., 17 years for patents) as evidence it's not true property, and argued it violates free speech by restricting expression, such as banning sequels or hyperlinks to content. Empirically, he asserted no clear proof IP boosts innovation net of its costs (e.g., patent thickets stifling research), citing economists Boldrin and Levine's work showing patents correlate with filings but not actual productivity gains. Kinsella highlighted his experience as a patent attorney, observing inventions arise from market needs, not IP incentives. Wright rebutted by calling Kinsella's arguments circular and false, insisting IP aligns with Lockean rights and societal agreements. He claimed over 2,000 studies from natural experiments (e.g., IP reductions in India and China leading to innovation drops, followed by surges upon reinstatement) support IP's benefits for small innovators. Wright traced IP to ancient precedents like Roman judicial law and medieval letters patent, rejecting the idea it's a modern monopoly. He argued creators have rights to control their work, and without IP, theft via trade secrets proliferates, as in Google Waymo cases, creating uncertainty that deters investment. On utility, Wright explained IP's mechanism: patents reduce uncertainty by disclosing inventions publicly, enabling due diligence for investors and preventing costly secret thefts, unlike trade secrets that led to billion-dollar disputes (e.g., Oculus). He advocated updating outdated IP models but insisted communities can agree on rules, aligning with individual choice. In blockchain, Wright argued IP prevents fragmentation (e.g., Bitcoin splits), fosters certainty for scaling against incumbents like Visa, and protects costly innovations his company developed, countering claims that open-source drove crypto growth. Kinsella rebutted Wright's evidence as anecdotal, pointing to his compilation of studies showing IP's net harm, including trillions in lost innovation. He labeled IP socialist for interfering with private property, per Hoppe's definition, and dismissed historical precedents as mercantilist monopolies antithetical to free markets. On free speech, Kinsella cited cases like the banned Catcher in the Rye sequel, Nosferatu film destruction, Aaron Swartz's suicide amid copyright charges, and threats against yoga poses or tattoos as direct censorship. He argued trademark creates "reputation rights" implying ownership over others' thoughts, while trade secrets unjustly target third parties. In closings, Wright defended IP against misrepresentations, clarifying Swartz's case involved physical trespass (not just copyright) and the Apple iPhone incident as theft by finding, both violating physical property. He promised to compile real-world studies countering Kinsella's "computer models," emphasizing human action over simulations. Kinsella reiterated IP's injustice, burdening proponents to justify it amid historical injustices like slavery. He agreed information needn't be free but opposed restricting learned knowledge, urging libertarians to favor competition and abolish IP for true free markets. Wright's arguments lack coherence and systematic structure, often jumping between philosophical claims (e.g., ideas as scarcer than land), empirical assertions (e.g., Indian patent surges), and historical anecdotes without clear linkages or definitions. His rebuttals frequently digress into unrelated critiques (e.g., equating Swartz's actions to house-breaking) or unsubstantiated boasts (e.g., "over 2,000 studies" without citations), making the case feel scattershot rather than logically progressive. While he invokes libertarian concepts like individual rights and anti-communism, the arguments are not consistently backed by verifiable evidence; claims rely on vague "natural experiments" or personal company experiences, ignoring counter-studies Kinsella references. This contrasts with Kinsella's methodical breakdown of property theory and empirical critiques. Furthermore, Wright's positions are inconsistent with core libertarian private property rights, which emphasize non-aggression and ownership of scarce resources without state intervention. By advocating state-enforced IP monopolies (e.g., patents in blockchain to prevent "fragmentation"), Wright endorses government grants that restrict others' use of their own property—precisely the interference libertarians like Rothbard and Hoppe decry as socialist. His dismissal of open-source success in crypto as suboptimal ignores libertarian preferences for voluntary agreements over coerced disclosure, and his creation-from-nothing rationale contradicts Lockean homesteading, which ties rights to mixing labor with unowned resources, not ideas. Overall, Wright's defense prioritizes utilitarian outcomes over principled non-initiation of force, undermining libertarian consistency. Youtube (with captions): https://youtu.be/5ckcdnD9lFw Original Youtube (which contains a large number of comments; see below):  ❧ TRANSCRIPT Intellectual Property Debate: Stephan Kinsella vs. Craig Wright Stephan Kinsella, Craig Wright, and Vin Armani Vin Armani Show, London and Las Vegas, Jan. 27, 2018 00:00:00

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 233. This is my appearance on the Jan. 9, 2018 episode of the Mises UK Podcast, with host Andy Duncan. From his shownotes: On the fourth episode of the MisesUK.Org Podcast, Andy Duncan discusses with Stephan Kinsella the concept, theory, and practice of Bitcoin ownership, amongst other topics, which include the use of Bitcoin as money, the comparison between gold and Bitcoin, and the possible collapse of states everywhere due to the current monetary revolution which states may have been too slow to respond to, for the sake of their own existence. Youtube version: Related material: KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) What do you legally “own” with Bitcoin? Posted on November 23, 2018 by prestonbyrne -- see my comments for more on whether bitcoin is ownable property, see this Facebook thread KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender KOL086 | RARE Radio interview with Kurt Wallace: The War on Bitcoin KOL 043 | Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast, with Michael Shanklin: Bitcoin, Legal Reform, Morality of Voting, Rothbard on Copyright Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, WSJ Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; Miami Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Not Money; Dismisses Money Laundering, Transmitting Charges How to handle bitcoin gains on your taxes SEC: US Securities Laws ‘May Apply’ to Token Sales Federal Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Real Money See other links at KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) My facebook post discussing ownership of Bitcoin Tom Bell: Copyright Erodes Property? KOL233 | Mises UK Podcast: Bitcoin Ownership and the Global Withering of the State for more on whether bitcoin is ownable property, see this Facebook thread KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender KOL086 | RARE Radio interview with Kurt Wallace: The War on Bitcoin KOL 043 | Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast, with Michael Shanklin: Bitcoin, Legal Reform, Morality of Voting, Rothbard on Copyright KOL249 | WCN’s Max Hillebrand: Intellectual Property and Who Owns Bitcoin

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 232. This is my appearance on Keith Knight's Youtube show "Don't Tread on Anyone" (Dec. 18, 2017), discussing a hodge-podge of issues such as the fundamentals of libertarianism, why scarcity is an important concept, Hoppe's greatest contributions, and so on. Youtube embedded below.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 231. This is my appearance on Let's Talk ETC! (Ethereum Classic) (Dec. 8, 2017), discussing the referenced topics. The audience is not really a libertarian one so I explained different approaches to libertarianism and some of my thoughts about libertarian activism, the prospects of bitcoin and other technology possibly aiding in the fight for human liberty and the battle against the state, and so on. The host was very good, the discussion very civil, and the audio quality is pretty good. Transcript below. Youtube: https://youtu.be/B4k9Wv7obWA Original Youtube: TRANSCRIPT Let’s Talk Ethereum—Libertarianism, Anarcho-Capitalism & Blockchains Stephan Kinsella and Christian Seberino Let's Talk ETC! (Ethereum Classic) podcast, Dec. 8, 2017   00:00:05 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: Hello and welcome to another edition of Let’s Talk ETC.  I’m your host, Christian Seberino.  And today I have a special guest with me, Stephen Kinzella.  Did I pronounce your name correctly? 00:00:20 STEPHAN KINSELLA: No, Stephen Kinsella, but that’s close enough. 00:00:24 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: Okay, Stephen Kinsella.  And so I think you'll agree he's a will be an interesting guest for us.  He is – let me read part of his Wikipedia page.  So Stephan Kinsella is an American intellectual property lawyer, author and deontological anarcho-capitalist.  He attended Louisiana State University where he earned a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in electrical engineering.  So he does have knowledge definitely of technical aspects and a Juris Doctor from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center, and he also obtained an LL.M. at the University of London. 00:01:11 He was formerly an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, faculty member of the Mises Academy, and he also co-founded the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, C4SIF, of which he is currently the director.  So wow.  Welcome, and congrats on that very impressive resume. 00:01:37 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Thank you very much. 00:01:39 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: So the reason I thought it would be interesting to have you on the show, and I think the audience would agree – so a lot of people get into blockchain technology and Ethereum Classic, which is one of the main focuses of the show, because they have libertarian leanings.  That's not a requirement, but I do notice it attracts a lot of those people.  And they were all – or most of us are technically minded, and so a lot of times people will say things and I'll wonder, well, is what you're saying really backed up by the people that know about the law and economy more than developers? 00:02:26 Would they agree with the things people are saying?  And so that's why I think you're a very helpful guest because you bring that that side of things.  We don't usually discuss things with lawyers and people that know so much about the economy.  So why don't we – why don’t you start with – why don't you describe from your website what a deontological libertarian is?  Now, when I searched for that on Wikipedia, it came up that it was the same thing as a natural-rights libertarian.  So can you kind of talk about that? 00:03:05 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Sure.  Well, keep in mind that I didn't write that page, so that's someone else's description.  I don't strongly disagree with it, but I think what the person writing that was trying to get at was there are – there’s considered to be two basic types.  Now there are some people that think there are three or more but two basic types of approaches towards, say, ethics.  And to simplify it, they’re empirical/utilitarian and natural rights/deontological. 00:03:40 So the first would be kind of a consequentialist approach, which is basically, we're in favor of rules in society and laws that lead to the greatest benefit for society in general.  And that's sometimes called utilitarianism.  It's an empirical approach that a lot of economists favor, like they try to say, should we adjust the tax code this way?  Should we have this kind of law?  Who’s it going to benefit?  Who’s it going to hurt?  And we sum this up, and we try to do the overall best good for society. 00:04:14 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: All right. 00:04:13 STEPHAN KINSELLA: And then the deontological approach, and by the way, people that are familiar with the philosophical idea of ontology, which is the philosophical study of the types of things that exist, the word sounds similar.  But they actually have nothing to do with each other.  So deontology and ontology have literally nothing to do with each other.  Deontological just means an approach that is more rule or principle-based, and that's why it's more geared towards the natural law.  So the idea is that we're in favor of rules that are right, no matter what the consequences, so that's the kind of classical division. 00:04:55 Now, someone like me, I wouldn't really – I don't actually think there's a division. I think that the rules that are right and good sort of blend with and complement the rules that lead to the best results for society on average.  So I wouldn't really distinguish between the two.  I think people call me a deontological anarchist libertarian because I've written in the tradition of Ayn Rand, who's sort of an Aristotelian natural-rights theorist, and Rothbard, who was in the natural rights tradition. 00:05:27 But I myself have been more influenced by Mises – Ludwig von Mises in economics, who's an Austrian economist, and by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who is a German Austrian economist, who's been influenced by Rothbard and Mises.  But his theory of rights is sort of a blend of consequentialism and the natural rights approach.  So we could get into that if it's interesting, but basically I prefer to view my approach as logical and consistent and principled. 00:06:02 So you talk to other human beings that we live with, the ones that share similar values, basic values like peace, prosperity, cooperation.  And we say, listen, if you apply the rules of economics and logic and consistency and honesty and evidence to these things, what would what would that lead you to conclude?  So if we all are in favor of each other prospering and everyone doing better in life and we have some awareness of the laws of economics, the basic laws of economics, then what kind of laws would we be in favor of?  What kind of legal policies would we be in favor of? 00:06:43 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: Okay, so you want me to answer that?  Okay, so two general classes of answers that I hear to your question is there's the camp that says that we give everybody – we respect everyone's freedom, and we leave people alone.  That's what I think of when I think of libertarianism.  I’m a simple guy.  I think in simple definitions.  That's how I would – your definition was obviously much more sophisticated than mine.  But that's like a broad category.  And then other people seem to want to focus on taking care of people… 00:07:22 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yes. 00:07:23 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: What we would call the socialistic approach perhaps.  And those are kind of the two big answers that I see, and they're always in conflict, maybe not all the time.  But those are the kind of the biggest, two divisions that I see.  Would you agree with that? 00:07:38 STEPHAN KINSELLA: I see.  I think from the perspective that I come from, we don't agree with all these bifurcations exactly because we see that there are loaded presuppositions in the way that these things are framed.  And so it depends upon who or which audience we're speaking to.  But if I'm talking to someone that just is dabbling in this or hasn’t experienced the libertarian perspective on things, then that perspective that you just put out, so we would say that's a false dichotomy that, first of all, there's no conflict between rights, and there's no conflict between the desire to help people and the desire to protect people's individual property rights. 00:08:29 We think that those things go together.  But there is a conflict between the idea of having, say, a legal right to be taken care of and a legal right to your property.  They do run in conflict with each other because – and this goes into what libertarians sometimes emphasize, the distinction between negative and positive rights. 00:08:51 So basically libertarians tend to say that we believe in negative rights and the corresponding negative obligations, which means that you have a right to do whatever you want within your own territory basically, and your own property, your own body, as long as you don't invade someone else's rights, which is sort of what you stated earlier as the kind of rule-of-thumb way of looking at it.  And that can be viewed as a negative right because the only obligation or duty that it imposes upon your neighbors is for them not to do something.  All they have to do is not invade your property.  They have to not hurt you.  They have to not steal from you.  They have to not invade your – so the only burden you impose upon them is to just not do something, to refrain from doing something. 00:09:38 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: I see. 00:09:39 STEPHAN KINSELLA: But if you believe in positive rights, which is the right to be educated, the right to a house, the right to food, these kinds of things, that requires that someone else has to have an obligation or a duty to provide you with it.  So if you have a right to an income, that means other people have the obligation to give that to you.  But that means that you have a right to their property, so there's always a conflict between the right that you have to your property and other people's rights to try to get a piece of it 00:10:11 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: Okay so… 00:10:12 STEPHAN KINSELLA: It becomes positive welfare rights. 00:10:14 CHRISTIAN SEBERINO: Okay,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 230. This is my own audio recording of my debate on IP at the Yale Political Union (Facebook) on Tues., Dec. 5, 2017. My opponent was attorney Candice Cook. My initial argument begins at 0:04:40, followed by some Q&A, and my closing argument begins at 1:42:20. I can't say I recommend listening to the comments of others, as none of my arguments were really addressed and the arguments given are pretty incoherent—the arguments for IP were rooted in confused utilitarianism and even the arguments against IP were mostly rooted in anti-property socialistic assumptions. As expected, I lost the debate, by vote of the students, by a vote of about 2:1. Admittedly, it doesn't sound too bad to get 1/3, when not even all libertarians have the right view on IP, but it's worse than that: many of those who voted with me voted against IP for socialistic, anti-property reasons. Everyone is so confused about this topic. I knew this would be the case, I knew it would basically impossible, hopeless, to persuade mainstream left-socialistic types in a short talk of a radical position that rests upon having a sound view of property rights. So I went ahead, giving up hope on the audience, and laid out a systematic argument against IP based the nature of human action, human interaction, and property rights. A systematic, if compressed, argument, that could possibly resonate with some open-minded people someday listening to the recording via this podcast.  Thus, my initial presentation was a very condensed (15-20 minutes) but very fundamental explanation of the nature of property rights and why intellectual property is totally incompatible with property rights. Even though I knew it would be a hard sell with Yale undergrads. As can be heard from the "hissing" (their version of booing) whenever anything pro-private-property or capitalistic was mentioned, and from the comments of some of the student political group leaders, there was a good deal of explicit Marxism and socialism among the student. But it was fun nonetheless and they were very civil and respectful. Video of the debate available here and embedded below. (I spoke on IP before a smaller student group back in 2014—see KOL151 | Yale Speech: Balancing Intellectual Property Rights and Civil Liberties: A Libertarian Perspective.)