Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 220. This is my interview by Rod Rojas of the Future Gravy show, which focuses on bitcoin and blockchain topics. We discussed how patents harm innovation and various strategies some companies use to try to deal with the patent threat, such as patent pooling, defensive patent licensing, whether Blockstream's Patent Pledge is really a tactic that makes them a patent threat to the blockchain community, and related matters. The video is embedded below. Relevant material: Blockstream’s Defensive Patent Strategy: Patent Pledge EFF: The Defensive Patent License; Blockstream Announces Defensive Patent Strategy; Blockstream: Modified Innovator’s Patent Agreement; EFF: Blockstream Commits to Patent Nonaggression. Kinsella, The Patent Defense League and Defensive Patent Pooling ----, Do Business Without Intellectual Property ----, “Defensive Patent License” created to protect innovators from trolls; probably won’t work ----, Twitter Heroically Promises Not to Use Patents Offensively The Patent Pledge KOL220 | Future Gravy Interview about Blockstream and the Defensive Patent License Bitmex: A blockchain-specific defensive patent licence.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 219. I delivered a talk earlier today for the Houston Property Rights Association (April 28, 2017), “Property: What It Is and Isn’t,” which sets out the framework for how to view property rights in general and then finally turns to intellectual property. The main talk lasted for about the first 30 minutes; the final hour is Q&A. My speech notes (unedited and raw) are below. Property: What It Is and Isn’t   Stephan Kinsella Kinsella Law Group, Libertarian Papers, C4SIF.org   Houston Property Rights Association · April 28, 2017   Ï   When a Great Austrian thinker was asked, “What is Best in Life?” He answered: “To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.”   Okay, that was Arnold Scharzenegger as Conan. This recognizes that conflict always possible in human life There are only so many “things” to go around, and if multiple people want it, they can fight violently over it. There can be conflict, precisely because we do not live in a world of superabundance. Garden of Eden etc. we live in a world where conflict is possible Another way to put this: we live in a world of scarce resources Better called “rivalrous”   Let’s turn to the ideas of another great Austrian thinker, Ludwig von Mises Praxeology: the logic of human action Structure of human action Humans use knowledge about the world to select, control and employ scarce resources (means of action) to change the future—to achieve ends Notice two crucial ingredients to successful human action: knowledge, and scarce resources/means. This is true of Crusoe alone on his island It is also true of man in society   In society there is another way to handle the problem of scarce resources Instead of conflict, we can develop usage or ownership rules, to permit scarce resources to be used peacefully, productively, cooperatively, and without conflict This is the origin and basis of “property”. Alone, a man wants to use a thing: he uses it: he controls it, possesses it. In society, there could be two people who want the same thing, but because it is scarce only one can use it. Usage rules emerge that specify an owner of a given contestable resource. We call this system “property rights” We sometimes call the objects themselves “property” That chair is my property When you use a resource to change the world, in addition to your hands, your body, it becomes an extension of yourself. It becomes identified with the user. “Part of” the user. We might say it is a feature, or characteristic, or an aspect, of the user—or a “property” of the user. My gun, my knife, my fishing net, are how I control the world. I rely on them as I rely on my hands and my eyes. Thus we refer to owned objects as “a property of” the owner. we say he has a “proprietary interest in” the object, he is the proprietor, the owner. He has a property right in that resource. Notice earlier: can say these resources are “characteristics” or “features” or properties of a person’s identity. It would be odd to say “that chair is my characteristic” or “my feature”. Yet we are used to saying “that chair is my property” but what we mean is: a given person is the owner of that resource. A given person has a property right in that resource.   A system of property rights, or law, emerges, which determines owners of various resources. Who has a property right in this thing? Who owns it? “Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property.” — FrédéricBastiat This is true of all legal and political systems, even socialist What distinguishes libertarianism and free market, western systems is our property allocation rules. These are: self-ownership (body-ownership), plus: for scarce resources, three rules: Original appropriation (homesteading; Locke) Consensual transfer (contract; gift; bequest) Rectification (restitution) for tort or crime Any other system deviates from these rules and assigns property rights based on some other, non-natural rule. Any other rule is a type of theft or taking of property rights, or a form of slavery Briefly explain basis for the three rules   Intellectual Property Patent and copyright “Article I, Section 8of the United States Constitution, empowers the United States Congress: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Is IP “property” —is not the right question. That’s like asking “is IP feature? Is IP characteristic?” Is it compatible with capitalist property allocation rules? Remember distinction between knowledge and resources in human action. Explain IP as “negative servitudes” and contrary to capitalist property allocation rules Rothbard’s “autistic,” “binary” and “triangular” taxonomy of state intervention

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 218. This is Episode 50 of the Patterson in Pursuit podcast, where host Steve Patterson interviews me about Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics. [Update: He does a breakdown of our discussion in Episode 63.] Patterson's description: If we choose to argue, have we presupposed an ethical framework? Is “self-ownership” a concept that cannot coherently be doubted? To help me answer these questions, I’m joined by one of the most prominent supporters of “argumentation ethics” – the theory that says ownership is inescapable, and as soon as we choose to argue, we’re committed to a set of ethical values. Related resources: Kinsella, “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide” (2011) and Supplemental Resources Hans Hermann Hoppe, “On The Ethics of Argumentation” (PFS 2016) Kinsella, New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory Frank van Dun, "Argumentation Ethics and The Philosophy of Freedom" Kinsella, The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory Kinsella, Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 217. This is Episode 14 of the MusicPreneur podcast, "Intellectual Property is the Bastard Child of the Gatekeepers," run by host James Newcomb (recorded Jan. 9, 2017; released Jan. 31, 2017). I appeared on his previous podcast, Outside the Music Box, a while back (KOL204 | Outside the Music Box Interview: The Ins and Outs of Intellectual Property). This one is a fresh, stand-alone discussion where I lay out the case against IP fairly methodically. MusicPreneur shownotes below. See also my A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP. GROK SHOWNOTES: In this interview on the MusicPreneur podcast, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella delivers a wide-ranging critique of intellectual property (IP) laws—especially patents and copyrights—calling them illegitimate state-enforced monopolies rooted in historical gatekeeping, censorship, and privilege rather than genuine property rights (0:00–10:00). Kinsella traces the origins of copyright to pre-printing-press censorship by church and crown, through the Stationers’ Company monopoly, to the 1710 Statute of Anne, and patents to royal letters patent and mercantilist grants (e.g., the 1623 Statute of Monopolies), arguing that both systems were designed to control knowledge and speech, not to protect creators (10:01–25:00). Using Austrian economics, he explains that property rights exist only for scarce, rivalrous resources, while ideas are non-scarce and cannot be owned; IP artificially creates scarcity, restricting how people use their own tangible property (e.g., a patented mousetrap) and stifling competition and innovation (25:01–40:00). Kinsella critiques the economic and cultural harms of IP, including inflated prices in pharmaceuticals, litigation costs, and censorship of expression, contrasting these with IP-free industries like open-source software and fashion that thrive on emulation and first-mover advantage (40:01–55:00). He debunks common pro-IP arguments—the utilitarian incentive story, labor/creation-based claims, and personality theories—labeling them flawed, self-serving, or empirically unsupported, and argues that IP is a modern form of mercantilism that benefits gatekeepers (large corporations, Hollywood, Big Pharma) at the expense of creators, consumers, and freedom (55:01–1:10:00). In the discussion/Q&A portion, Kinsella addresses alternatives (trade secrets, reputation, market incentives), the digital age’s erosion of IP enforcement, and why even small creators would be better off without IP, concluding that the system should be abolished entirely (1:10:01–end). This interview is a clear, provocative libertarian takedown of IP, especially valuable for musicians, creators, and entrepreneurs. Transcript and Grok Detailed Summary below GROK DETAILED SUMMARY 0:00–10:00 (Introduction, Kinsella’s background, and the core thesis, ~10 minutes) Description: Host James Newcomb introduces Kinsella as a patent attorney and libertarian critic of IP. Kinsella explains his unusual position: he has prosecuted hundreds of patents for large companies (Intel, GE, Lucent, etc.) while believing all forms of IP should be abolished. He states his central thesis: IP is the “bastard child of the gatekeepers”—a modern continuation of historical censorship and monopoly privilege, not a legitimate form of property. He briefly previews the historical and economic critique to come. Key Themes: Kinsella’s dual role: patent lawyer who opposes patents/copyrights IP as illegitimate monopoly privilege, not property Framing: IP is rooted in gatekeeping (church, state, guilds, publishers) Summary: Kinsella establishes his credentials and the provocative title, setting up IP as a statist, gatekeeper-derived system rather than a natural right. 10:01–25:00 (Historical origins of copyright and patent: censorship & mercantilism, ~15 minutes) Description: Kinsella traces copyright to pre-printing-press church/state control of scribes, then to the Stationers’ Company monopoly (chartered to control printing), and finally to the Statute of Anne (1710), which shifted the monopoly from printers to authors/publishers but remained a state privilege. Patents originated in royal “letters patent” (open letters granting monopolies), abused by monarchs for revenue/favors, leading to the 1623 Statute of Monopolies. Both systems were originally about control, censorship, and mercantilist privilege, not “property rights.” Key Themes: Copyright as successor to censorship monopolies Patents as royal/mercantilist grants Both were temporary privileges, not natural rights Summary: Detailed historical account showing IP began as censorship and monopoly tools of the state and crown, not as recognition of creators’ natural rights. 25:01–40:00 (Scarcity, property rights, and why IP is conceptually impossible, ~15 minutes) Description: Kinsella explains the Austrian/libertarian view: property rights exist only to allocate scarce, rivalrous resources and avoid conflict. Ideas, patterns, and information are non-scarce (infinitely reproducible without depriving others), so they cannot be owned. IP law therefore artificially creates scarcity where none exists, restricting how people use their own tangible property (e.g., ink, paper, machines). He uses the mousetrap example: a patent doesn’t take your mousetrap away; it takes your right to use your own materials to build one. Key Themes: Property rights exist only for scarce/rivalrous things Ideas are non-scarce → cannot be property IP = negative easement / servitude over others’ physical property Summary: Core conceptual critique: IP is impossible in principle because ideas are non-scarce; enforcing IP violates real (physical) property rights. 40:01–55:00 (Economic and cultural harms of IP; modern gatekeepers, ~15 minutes) Description: Kinsella discusses IP’s practical harms: patents distort R&D toward trivial patentable inventions, create litigation wars, raise prices (pharma), and enable patent trolling. Copyright locks up culture, limits remixing/fan works, and creates gatekeepers (publishers, labels, Hollywood). He compares modern IP enforcement (domain seizures, ISP cooperation, warrantless searches) to historical mercantilist abuses, arguing that large corporations are the new gatekeepers using IP to extract rents and suppress competition. Key Themes: Economic harms: litigation, price inflation, distorted R&D Cultural harms: locked-up works, stifled remixing Modern IP = mercantilism 2.0; big corporations as new gatekeepers Summary: IP creates massive economic waste and cultural enclosure, serving corporate gatekeepers rather than creators or consumers. 55:01–1:10:00 (Debunking common pro-IP arguments, ~15 minutes) Description: Kinsella systematically dismantles the main justifications for IP: Natural rights / Lockean labor theory (flawed metaphor; labor is not ownable; creation is not a source of title). Utilitarian incentive story (empirical evidence shows IP does not increase net innovation; costs outweigh benefits). Personality theory (Hegel/Rand; vague and does not justify monopoly). He also rejects contractual IP schemes (cannot bind third parties) and notes that even trade secrets become problematic when turned into state-enforceable misappropriation causes of action. Key Themes: Natural rights / labor theory is conceptually confused Utilitarian case is empirically weak Personality theory is vague and insufficient Summary: Comprehensive takedown of every major intellectual justification for IP, showing they are either conceptually flawed or empirically unsupported. 1:10:01–end (Digital age, AI, future evasion, and conclusion, ~remaining time) Description: Kinsella discusses how digital technology is eroding copyright (easy copying, encryption, Tor) and predicts that maturing 3D printing + encrypted designs will eventually make patents unenforceable (1:10:01–1:15:00). He notes that AI is already being hampered by copyright threats (training data lawsuits), and hopes the immense value of AI will force society to confront the conflict between IP and human progress (1:15:01–1:20:00). He closes by reiterating that IP is a modern mercantilist gatekeeping system, not property, and calls for its abolition, directing listeners to c4sif.org for more systematic arguments (1:20:01–end). Key Themes: Digital technology is making copyright obsolete and unenforceable AI vs. IP: the coming conflict • • Final call to abolish IP and make it “history” Summary: Kinsella looks forward to technology eroding IP enforcement, highlights the AI-copyright tension, and concludes with a call to end IP entirely. SHOWNOTES from host James Newcomb 01/31/2017 | 0 Listen to this episode Play / pause 1x Intellectual Property is the Bastard Child of the Gatekeepers (Ep. 14) 0:00 0:00 Intellectual Property is the Bastard Child of the Gatekeepers (Ep. 14) Download "Doing Business Without Intellectual Property!" Download stephankinsella.com You're probably going to disagree with what is said in this episode. In fact, it could very well make you angry. But, as Bob Dylan said, "The times, they are a changin'." It's an issue that I've wrestled with over the years and have finally come to the conclusion that Intellectual Property (IP) is detrimental to progress and innovation. While on the surface it appears to protect the rights of content creators to profit from their content, the reality is that the only people who really profit are the "gate keepers" and those who hang out near "the gates". I've tried to take a "back door" approach with this issue before,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 216. I was a guest recently on Isaac Morehouse's podcast, "Why Intellectual Property Sucks, with Stephan Kinsella" (Oct. 10, 2016), discussing intellectual property and related issues. Isaac's description below, along with the transcript. Is intellectual property law the foundation of an innovative society? Or a racket set up to protect entrenched businesses from competition? Stephan Kinsella joins the show this week to break down intellectual property law. Stephan is a practicing patent attorney, a libertarian writer and speaker, Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF), and Founding and Executive Editor of Libertarian Papers. He is one of the clearest and most compelling thinkers on intellectual property law. We cover the historical context of IP law, the modern day consequences of copyright and patent monopolies, the flaws in common arguments for intellectual property laws, and more. Covered in this episode: How did Stephan become interested in intellectual property? His intellectual evolution on the topic of intellectual property What are copyright, patent, trademarks, and trade secrets? Where did the concept of intellectual property come from? Which IP laws are the most harmful? Fraud vs. Trademarks Libertarian perspectives on IP John Locke’s  errors on property that affect us today Why Innovation is stronger without IP (fashion, food, football) Problems with trade secret law Copyright law that existed under common law Why IP is wrong from a deontological and consequentialist point of view How would J.K. Rowling make a living without IP? How to be principled about IP as an entrepreneur while not harming your company Links: www.stephankinsella.com How I Changed My Mind on Intellectual Property by Isaac Morehouse Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella (free) Do business without IP by Stephan Kinsella Episode 14: Harris Kenny on 3D Printing and a World Without Intellectual Property C4SIF.org (Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom) Ayn Rand on IP Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David Levine (Free version) The Case Against Patents by Michele Boldrin and David Levine If you are a fan of the show, make sure to leave a review on iTunes. All episodes of the Isaac Morehouse Podcast are available on SoundCloud, iTunes, Google Play, and Stitcher. Transcript (auto-generated by youtube): 0:02 [Music] 0:17 this is Isaac Morehouse welcome to the podcast where we discuss education 0:22 entrepreneurship big ideas how to put them into practice in the real world and above all how to live free how to go 0:33 from zero to a startup job in nine months you don't need to jump through 0:39 hoops or blast out resumes you can start today praxis combines a 3-month professional 0:46 bootcamp with a six month paid apprenticeship at a startup that leads directly to a 0:52 full-time job startups aren't just for coders sales marketing operations even if you're not 1:00 sure what you're interested in praxis places you with a dynamic growing company where you do work you love 1:06 become part of a team and make a difference praxis is tailored to your goals and your interests coaching 1:13 sessions group discussions with your peers skills training and a portfolio of projects along with the imprensa ship 1:20 create a powerful combination of real world experience and intensive learning 1:26 we are relentlessly committed to helping you discover and do what makes you come 1:33 alive we don't just prepare you for a job we actually give you one no degree 1:39 is required to get started on your career whether you're an ambitious go-getter right out of high school a 1:45 creative thinker who's bored in college or a college grad looking for the next 1:50 step discover praxis great jobs are waiting are you ready 1:58 [Music] 2:10 today I am very excited to have on the show stephan kinsella this is actually Guest introduction 2:15 when I first launched the podcast when I made my first list of potential guests I wanted to have Stefan was on that very 2:21 first list that it's taken over a year for whatever reason to just get him on 2:27 the show and do an episode about intellectual property so Stefan welcome 2:32 to the podcast thanks a lot glad to be here so briefly introducing you and I know your bio is 2:37 much more deep in why'd Stefan is a patent lawyer interestingly enough has 2:44 been for almost 25 years now he also has a podcast he is a scholar has written 2:49 many both sort of popular and scholarly articles on everything from intellectual 2:55 property which is our subject today to you know all kinds of legal theory the 3:01 philosophy of Liberty many many more he's he's kind of the foremost expert on intellectual property certainly from a 3:09 free-market standpoint he's the founder and director of the Center for hold on 3:15 I'm gonna get the name wrong let me make sure I get it right the the Center for the study of innovative freedom which is 3:23 really focused on the intellectual property topic so Stefan what did I miss 3:28 in your bio that's important you got it right I am a quick summary of my path 3:37 was an 82 I became a libertarian through reading Rand in high school and around 88 in law school I became an anarchist 3:44 after reading Rothbard and the others and around 1992 or so 1993 I started 3:50 practicing patent law and that's right when I became anti IP at the same time so right when I learned enough about IP 3:57 law to start practicing it I also learned enough to realize that it was completely incompatible with libertarian 4:02 property rights yeah so let's let's jump right in there because as that was one of the first things I want to ask you How did you get into IP 4:08 how did you get into you know the issue they're interested in the issue of the 4:14 intellectual property and and how have you sort of maintained a career a patent attorney well you've had this 4:22 philosophical position in opposition to IP so how did it start yeah well you're just reading reading 4:28 the basics of libertarian theory like when I was younger in college and even earlier Iran's defense of intellectual 4:33 property you know they never quite made sense to me like the other stuff did because she's like in favor of this 4:40 patent system which gives you a monopoly over in addition but for 17 years and 4:45 copyright gives you a monopoly over an idea but for you know 60 or 70 years but it's it's like an arbitrary time frame 4:53 and that doesn't see didn't seem like to me I said there's something wrong with this because natural rights lasts forever if they're justified so I I just 5:00 put it on the back burner and I figured I figured they knew more than I did about it and I kept thinking about it 5:07 and when I went to law school I thought more when I started practicing in a different field in an international law 5:13 and oil and gas or energy law but I finally switched over to patents because the the tech field was really good at 5:20 the time in law the patent law field so I switched over and at that time I just 5:26 started thinking more and more about it and I started doing a lot more reading I read works by Wendy McIlroy who I really 5:32 think is basically the pioneer in libertarian theory in intellectual property I really think she's the first 5:38 one who basically got it right she didn't flesh it out completely but she 5:45 she was there with Sam Konkan and Benjamin Tucker before her who she'd 5:51 studied but Benjamin Tucker's reasoning was not exactly right he was sort of 5:56 against monopoly for the same reason he was against monopolies and land so you can see that his reasoning wasn't quite 6:02 pure libertarian on this but Sam Konkan and Wendy Mack award really got it right 6:08 I think especially Wendy and and then Tom Palmer sort of writing some really good more advanced stuff in the 90s so I 6:16 read all that and some other people's works and I finally came to the conclusion oh the reason I'm having trouble justifying this because I 6:22 thought you know I know more about IP than most libertarians because I'm practicing it I can be the one who finally figured this out and explains 6:28 why it's why it is justified after all why yeah have a better explanation than ran did which by the way is what her chief sort 6:36 of a legal disciple right now Adam Moss off has been trying to do for a dozen years now or so he he keeps promising to 6:43 come up with some kind of defensive IP that is I guess better than rands but he just keeps repeating what she said as 6:49 far as I can tell and mixing it in with like utilitarian arguments like those of Richard Epstein so but I on the other 6:56 hand finally concluded that the reason I was having trouble finding a good argument for IP was because the same 7:02 reason I would have trouble finding an argument for slavery it's because it can't be justified so that was that was 7:08 my path and the the the basic reasoning I came to was not really utilitarian although I think empirical arguments or 7:16

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 215. www.stephankinsella.com/kinsella-on-liberty-podcast/ I was a guest recently on the Latter-Day Liberty podcast discussing intellectual property and related issues. Host: Mat Kent.   Ep. 19 Intellectual Property Podcast: Play in new window | Download How could a true libertarian claim to be against intellectual property? Aren’t property rights central to the principles of liberty? Stephan Kinsella joins us to discuss the case against IP and why, as libertarians, we should oppose it. About the Guest: Stephan Kinsella is a practicing patent attorney, a libertarian writer and speaker, Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF), and Founding and Executive Editor of Libertarian Papers. Guest’s Book: Against Intellectual Property Guest’s Links: stephankinsella.com Libertarian Papers Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom AuthorMat KentPosted onSeptember 9, 2016

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 214. www.stephankinsella.com/kinsella-on-liberty-podcast/ I was a guest on the fun and zany libertarian podcast "Johnny Rocket Launch Pad," Episode 97. They fired questions at me one after another, and I did my best to field them. The sound effects were added later. From the shownotes page: What are some things libertarians commonly get wrong? What bad habits do we fall into, with regard to philosophy and law? This week we are joined by the intellectual giant Stephan Kinsella, who brings his experience in law, and philosophy to the table. This episode exposes new ways of looking at old philosophies, and we also go into depth about intellectual property. This is an episode you cannot miss! You might even become a better libertarian.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 213. www.stephankinsella.com/kinsella-on-liberty-podcast/ This is a debate between me and one Todd Lewis, hosted by Keith Preston, about self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. Lewis had participated in a decent debate with Walter Block previously, so I agreed to discuss with him, even though he was not clear where he was coming from, what his own position was, or what he hoped to prove by debunking the NAP (whenever someone is opposed to the NAP, I assume they want to justify aggression—I think I'm right). This Lewis character appears to be some kind of "Mennonite" Christian in Ohio, and claims to be a former "fusionist" (some kind of libertarian+conservative) and now some form of Christian conservative who believes in legally punishing homosexuality. I don't think he was ever really a libertarian, to be honest. He attacks a lot of strawmen, and never really responds to my coherent statement of the libertarian vision. He calls this the "Praise of Folly" "podcast" though it is not a podcast since there is no RSS feed. But I'll grant, he was far more civil and even intelligent than others I have debated, on topics like anarchy and IP, such as Jan Helfeld and Robert Wenzel, though that's admittedly a low bar. For related material see: Selected Supplementary Material for Law in a Libertarian World: Legal Foundations of a Free Society What Libertarianism Is How We Come To Own Ourselves What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan (wayback version) KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery Walter Block episode:

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 212. www.stephankinsella.com/kinsella-on-liberty-podcast/ This is my interview, mostly on various anarcho-capitalism issues, by Josh Havins, of the Lafayette County (Mississippi) Libertarian Party: Their episode: “Ask a Libertarian #8 – Stephan Kinsella – Anarcho-Capitalism” (video embedded below). For related material see: What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist The Irrelevance of the Impossibility of Anarcho-Libertarianism Question about the feasibility of anarcho/libertarianism What Libertarianism Is Selected Supplementary Material for Law in a Libertarian World: Legal Foundations of a Free Society

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 211. My interview on the Wake Up Call podcast, Episode 44: Corporations and the Corporate Form. From the shownotes page: Episode Summary Stephan Kinsella joins Adam Camac and Daniel Laguros to discuss corporations and the corporate form, common objections, and state interventions in the area.   Related Articles 1. In Defense of the Corporation by Stephan Kinsella (October 27, 2005) 2. Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation by Stephan Kinsella (October 18, 2011) Books Mentioned 1. Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella 2. In Defense of the Corporation by Robert Hessen Related Interview 1. KOL170: Tom Woods Show: Are Corporations Unlibertarian? (January 24, 2015) Previous Appearance 24. The Nature of Property and Problems with Intellectual Property Laws with Stephan Kinsella (Wednesday, March 30, 2016)