Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 210. This is my interview, mostly on IP, by Josh Havins, of the Lafayette County (Mississippi) Libertarian Party: Their episode: "Ask a Libertarian #6 - Stephan Kinsella - Against Intellectual Property" (video embedded below).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 209. A patent litigator friend of mine in Houston, Sandeep (Sandy) Seth, and I have squabbled about intellectual property law before. So he came over to my house and we had a little conversation where I tried to find a way to get him to see why IP law should be abolished. The results were predictable. The video is embedded below. Background links: “Conversation with an author about copyright and publishing in a free society” “The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) “IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ,”StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) Discussion on Facebook “Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright” (Oct. 23, 2012) “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright” (Oct. 23, 2012)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 208. See also KOL387 | The Great IP Debate of 1983: McElroy vs. Schulman. [Transcript available here.] A conversation about intellectual property and libertarian and property theory with my old friend J. Neil Schulman.† We discussed our differing views on IP, as a result of my comments on a recent post Patrick Smith: Un-Intellectual Property. Hey, I tried my best, but we never quite saw eye to eye. For further information, see Neil's posts Human Property, The Libertarian Case for IP; and Media-Carried Property (MCP). See also the comments here to The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism and My Unfinished 30-Year-Old Debate with Wendy McElroy. For further material about Schulman’s logorights theory, see: Query for Schulman on Patents and Logorights; Kinsella v. Schulman on Logorights and IP; Schulman: “If you copy my novel, I’ll kill you”;  Replies to Neil Schulman and Neil Smith re IP; Schulman: Kinsella is “the foremost enemy of property rights”; On J. Neil Schulman’s Logorights; Reply to Schulman on the State, IP, and Carson. For some related material discussed, see Classical Liberals and Anarchists on Intellectual Property (discussing LeFevre) The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism (on Konkin) The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 207. A stand-alone episode recorded late at night on my iPhone—had to get it out, thinking about it was keeping me from sleeping. Audio quality is fine, though no pop filter or pro-microphone, as I just used my iPhone. Slight nasal cold leftover from snow-skiing trip altitude sickness is there, but it seems not to be too distracting. See also Kinsella, “Common Misconceptions about Plagiarism and Patents: A Call for an Independent Inventor Defense,” Mises Economics Blog (Nov. 21, 2009); and Kinsella, "If you oppose IP you support plagiarism; copying others is fraud or contract breach," in "Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Intellectual Property" C4SIF. See also this Grok conversation summarizing "why the case for patent and for copyright has nothing to do with plagiarism, contract breach, and fraud, why all these things are distinct, and opposing patent and copyright does not imply favoring fraud, dishonesty, plagiarism, or contract breach." Background material: Against Intellectual Property, "IP as Contract" section Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach (Feb. 3, 2009) The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression (July 17, 2006) Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft” and “piracy” A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 Reply to Van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 18, no. 2 (Spring 2004) See also Gregory N. Mandel, Anne A. Fast & Kristina R. Olson, "Intellectual Property Law’s Plagiarism Fallacy," BYU L. Rev. 2015, no. 4 (2015): 915–83; Gregory N. Mandel, "How people understand intellectual property, creativity and reward," in Abbe E.L. Brown & Charlotte Waelde, eds., Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Creative Industries (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2018), p. 295 et pass.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 206. [Transcript below] I discussed various libertarian with Tom Woods on his show today, Episode 592. From Tom's show notes: Stephan Kinsella joins me to discuss negative/positive rights and obligations, “loser pays,” whether creation makes you an owner, how we can consider spam aggression, and more. Fun! Grok shownotes: [00:00:00 - 00:15:00] In this episode of the Tom Woods Show, host Tom Woods interviews Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian lawyer and theorist, to discuss five common mistakes libertarians make. Kinsella begins by addressing the misuse of terms like "coercion" and "aggression," which libertarians often apply too broadly, diluting their precision in describing violations of property rights. He critiques the tendency to treat all government actions as inherently coercive, emphasizing that fraud or contract breaches also constitute aggression under libertarian principles. The conversation highlights the importance of grounding libertarian arguments in property rights, as seen in Kinsella’s title-transfer theory of contract, and avoiding oversimplified rhetoric that conflates voluntary agreements with coercion. [00:15:01 - 00:30:53] The discussion continues with Kinsella identifying additional pitfalls: misunderstanding the role of the state, overemphasizing utilitarianism, neglecting legal theory, and failing to engage with opposing views. He argues that libertarians should view the state as a monopolistic aggressor but avoid dismissing all governance outright, advocating for decentralized, voluntary systems. Kinsella warns against relying solely on utilitarian arguments, which can undermine principled libertarianism, and stresses the need for robust legal frameworks like his title-transfer theory to address issues like fraud and contract enforcement. The episode concludes with a call for libertarians to refine their arguments by studying philosophy and law, engaging critics thoughtfully, and avoiding dogmatic echo chambers to strengthen the movement’s intellectual rigor. Background materials for topics discussed: Spam: Why Spam is Trespass (Jan. 18, 2010) Kinsella & Tinsley, Causation and Aggression Positive rights and libertarianism: How We Come To Own Ourselves Objectivists on Positive Parental Obligations and Abortion Loser pays unlibertarian: See "Losing Patentee Pays" section of Reducing the Cost of IP Law Creation not a source of ownership: Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value Intellectual Freedom and Learning Versus Patent and Copyright “Locke on IP; Mises, Rothbard, and Rand on Creation, Production, and ‘Rearranging’,” Mises Economics Blog (Sep. 29, 2010) [updated C4SIF version, including Hoppe comments] “The Intellectual Property Quagmire, or, The Perils of Libertarian Creationism,” Austrian Scholars Conference 2008 (March 13, 2008) “Objectivist Law Prof Mossoff on Copyright; or, the Misuse of Labor, Value, and Creation Metaphors,” Mises Economics Blog (April 19, 2011) Rand on IP, Owning "Values", and "Rearrangement Rights" Related/previous talks: KOL118 | Tom Woods Show: Against Fuzzy Thinking KOL 044 | “Correcting some Common Libertarian Misconceptions” (PFS 2011) “Libertarian Controversies” “Correcting some Common Libertarian Misconceptions,” 2011 Annual Meeting, Property and Freedom Society (May 28, 2011) [podcast here] KOL185: Clarifying Libertarian Theory (Liberty.me, July 2014) Grok Detailed Shownotes: Detailed Segment Summary [00:00:00 - 00:07:30] Introduction and Mistake #1: Misusing "Coercion" and "Aggression" Tom Woods introduces Kinsella, noting his expertise in libertarian legal theory and his work on the title-transfer theory of contract. Kinsella identifies the first mistake: libertarians’ overuse of "coercion" and "aggression" to describe any disliked action, which dilutes their meaning. He clarifies that aggression, per libertarianism, involves violating property rights, including through fraud or contract breaches, not just physical force. [00:07:31 - 00:15:00] Mistake #2: Treating All Government Actions as Coercive Kinsella critiques the tendency to label all government actions as coercive, arguing that some, like enforcing valid contracts, align with libertarian principles if done voluntarily. He emphasizes that libertarianism should focus on property rights violations, using his title-transfer theory to explain how contracts are about title transfers, not enforceable promises. Woods and Kinsella discuss how sloppy terminology can weaken libertarian arguments, urging precision in debates. [00:15:01 - 00:22:00] Mistake #3: Misunderstanding the State’s Role Kinsella identifies the third mistake: viewing the state as inherently evil without nuance, which ignores the possibility of voluntary governance in a free society. He advocates for decentralized, market-based systems over monopolistic state control, but cautions against rejecting all forms of governance outright. The discussion touches on historical libertarian debates, with Kinsella citing Rothbard’s nuanced views on governance. [00:22:01 - 00:27:30] Mistake #4: Overemphasizing Utilitarianism Kinsella warns against relying solely on utilitarian arguments (e.g., “libertarianism maximizes wealth”), as they can falter against competing utilitarian claims. He argues for grounding libertarianism in principled property rights and natural law, which provide a stronger, more consistent foundation. Woods agrees, noting that utilitarianism can lead libertarians to compromise core principles for perceived practical gains. [00:27:31 - 00:30:53] Mistake #5: Neglecting Legal Theory and Engagement Kinsella highlights the final mistake: libertarians’ failure to develop robust legal theories and engage with critics, often retreating to echo chambers. He promotes his title-transfer theory as a framework for addressing complex issues like fraud and contract enforcement in a free society. The episode ends with a call for libertarians to study philosophy, law, and opposing views to refine their arguments and strengthen the movement’s intellectual credibility. ❧ Transcript [not yet edited] Tom Woods Show: Five Mistakes Libertarians Make Stephan Kinsella and Tom Woods, "Tom Woods Show: Five Mistakes Libertarians Make," StephanKinsella.com (Feb. 12, 2016) 00:00:00 TOM WOODS: The Tom Woods Show, episode 592. 00:00:03 INTRO: Prepare to set fire to the index card of allowable opinion.  Your daily dose of liberty education starts here, the Tom Woods Show. 00:00:14 TOM WOODS: Hey everybody.  Welcome to another episode of the show.  Talking to Stephan Kinsella today because he’s just – he’s got one of those sharp, sharp minds.  He thinks clearly.  He writes clearly.  He writes and speaks very precisely.  He helps to clarify my own thinking, and I thought we’d talk about some areas of libertarian thought or some questions where we’re liable to get off track or get confused or maybe not really know what the right libertarian answer is.  So it’s always fun to talk to Stephan who is a libertarian legal theorist.  He is the author of Against Intellectual Property and many articles that are of importance in libertarian theory.  We’ll be linking, of course, to his material and his contact information at tomwoods.com/592. 00:01:09 Now, let me tell you one quick thing.  I don’t know why this happens, but one episode out of 100 the recording software I use just fails completely, and you have no warning that it’s going to fail.  It’s recording perfectly fine.  You can catch the clock going, and then boom, no recording when you’re all done.  It’s Pamela, by the way, Pamela for Skype.  Now, you really need software to be 100% reliable.  You really do, so if you have an alternative to Pamela, I would grab it.  Right now, I don’t have time to figure out an alternative, so thank goodness; thank goodness Stephan was recording the episode on his end.  So whatever gremlin was trying to screw with me, we got the last laugh here because Stephan was doing the recording. 00:01:52 So in this episode, his audio will be better than mine because he’s recording himself basically locally and then me through Skype, so his audio will be better than mine.  That’s the reason.  And then at the end, apparently what – I – we – the connection got dropped, which there’s no reason Pamela shouldn’t have still recorded.  I mean there’s no reason.  You should record what you have, but anyway, ridiculous Pamela.  Anyway, the point is, at the very end, I’ll jump back in on my end here and wrap it up because just as I was wrapping it up the connection cut out.  So anyway, that’s way more information than you need, but I’m giving it to you anyway.  I want you to know what goes on here at the show, so off we go, talking to Stephan Kinsella whom I am very glad to welcome to the show right now.  Stephan, welcome back. 00:02:40 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Thanks Tom, glad to be here. 00:02:41 TOM WOODS: I’ve got a whole bunch of these things to talk to you about because you sent them to me.  So it helped me to come up with some ideas of things we can talk about.  There are so many things we can talk about, but I love these little bite-sized errors and fallacies that even I myself I’m sure have fallen into in a few cases.  But it helps us to get our thinking clear and straight. 00:03:04 So let’s see here.  Let’s start with one that’s a little theoretical but is pretty fundamental to libertarianism.  There is this idea that we believe in the idea of negative rights, and our opponents believe in positive rights.  And negative rights are things that don’t actually require us to do anything.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 205. This is my Austrian AV Club Interview by Redmond Weissenberger, Director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada, back from Aug. 25, 2012. [RIP; rip] We had a long-ranging discussion on the issue of net neutrality, and we touched on other issues as well including various ways the state impinges on Internet freedom, such as in the name of IP (SOPA, ACTA), child pornography, terrorism, online gambling, and so on. For background on some of the issues discussed, see my posts Net Neutrality Developments; Kinsella on This Week in Law discussing IP, Net Neutrality; Against Net Neutrality.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 204. From episode 087 of the Outside the Music Box podcast, "A PODCAST ABOUT PEOPLE, Centered on Music," hosted by James Newcomb [later re-podcast by Newcomb for his Trumpet Dynamics podcast, Ep. 80 Intellectual Property Overview]. In this episode of Outside the Music Box, we discuss one of the most sacred cows in life, that of Intellectual Property (IP). Stephan explains his position that IP creates confusion regarding the whole concept of property in general. He then gives practical guidance on how to survive and even thrive in this brave new world of IP in which we find ourselves.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 203. This is a Libertarianism Q&A I did using the new Facebook Mentions "Live Video" feature (from this Facebook post; Facebook Live Video; Jan. 11, 2016). I fielded a few questions on various topics, e.g. verbal threats as assault, assault and battery, causality, praxeology, etc. Older, audio-only youtube. Background: A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights How We Come To Own Ourselves Causation and Aggression The Limits of Armchair Theorizing: The case of Threats The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression Facebook Live Video below: // < ![CDATA[ (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); // ]]> Libertarian Theory Q&A Posted by Stephan Kinsella on Monday, January 11, 2016

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 202. I discussed the libertarian non-aggression principle with Tom Woods on his show today, Episode 566: Ep. 566 Why Are Some Libertarians Rejecting the Nonaggression Principle? 8th January 2016  It’s become fashionable in libertarian circles to ridicule the nonaggression principle. Stephan Kinsella and I speak in its defense. This one is long overdue. Column Discussed “Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle,” by Matt Zwolinski See also my: What Libertarianism Is Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach (Feb. 3, 2009) The Limits of Armchair Theorizing: The case of Threats, Mises Blog (Jul. 27, 2006) The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression (July 17, 2006)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 201. I was a guest today on the Mid-Life Criss podcast, episode 4, produced by my friend Jack Criss, of BAMSouth. We discussed my IP views, anarchy, and a few related matters. https://soundcloud.com/robert-dillard-689981544/mid-life-criss-show-4