Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 080. Ths is from a previous appearance on the Adam vs. the Man show at the RT Network, Episode #28 (May 19, 2011), discussing IP and related matters. As the show's notes describe the episode: Episode #28: Faith & healthcare, Intellectual property rights Tonight on ADAM VS THE MAN with Adam Kokesh: Adam has some good news for you tonight: you are not a pirate. In fact, because it is morally wrong to use the force of government to impede the free flow of ideas, you have the RIGHT to copy music, movies, text, software, inventions, and IDEAS! Speaking of ideas worth copying, Adam has best-selling author and President of Sojourners Jim Wallis in studio and Stephan Kinsella, intellectual property rights attorney, joins Adam from Houston Texas to tell you how to beat back the twisted logic of intellectual property. But that won’t stop the government from imposing a twisted morality of stifling innovation on you to make you feel bad for copying things that big corporations don’t want you to copy. Well tough! Because the internet is here to the rescue! - See more here

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 079. https://youtu.be/BZHIh6so6-Y This is from March 3, 2011: "IP Debate: John Templeton Foundation's Big Questions Debate series on Intellectual Property and Wealth Creation," The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Student Chapter of The Federalist Society (Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University, Columbus OH). Transcript below. This debate was part of the "John Templeton Foundation’s Big Questions Debate series on Intellectual Property and Wealth Creation”; I debated patent attorney and adjunct IP law professor Steve Grant, who represented the pro-IP side. A video was taken with a videocamera, but it was not direct mic'd so the quality is only so-so. The podcast version here is from my iPhone recording, which I often make during speeches as a backup, in case of low quality of the official version. My iPhone version is better quality, for my own remarks, than the audio from the camera (the audio file from  the camera's recording is here). Professor Grant did his best, but didn't have a solid argument for IP other than the standard "I think we should reform IP but not get rid of it." My opening speech is about 15 minutes and has decent audio quality, and is a summary of a hard-hitting version of the basic libertarian case against IP law (here is the powerpoint presentation I used; embedded version below). Grant's speech is audible but I was not very close to him; but his conventional and unsystematic, more empiricist and positivist than libertarian and principled remarks will be of only mild interest to libertarians. For my 10 or so minute rebuttal to him, I left my iPhone at the table but it's still audible; for the Q&A period, it was in front of me so it's decent again for that part. My host was Aman Sharma, a very staunch libertarian law student and head of the student chapter of the Federalist Society. When I was involved with the Federalist Society (lawyers chapters) in Philadelphia and Houston they were populated with mainly Newt Gingrich loving neocons; good to see some Austro-libertarians infiltrating their ranks. Sharma told me "I had a lot of fellow students approach me after the event with questions showing a new-found interest in the Mises/Austrian worldview." That is cool and gratifying. While in Ohio, I met my friend Jacob Huebert and other local libertarians/Federalist Society people—including Katelyn Horn and Maurice Thompson, of the 1851 Center, for dinner at Barrio Tapas. A fun trip, and great people. https://youtu.be/xkYeJ4_ULs0?si=X7xiWAu168WSIcxl TRANSCRIPT (from Youtube) 0:02 good afternoon president of the federal 0:07 society on behalf of more federal society and I get lost inside here more so I welcome you to today's event 0:14 entitled isn't Alexa property he relevant anymore proud to have the John Templeton 0:19 Foundation sponsors for this event they've got excellent catered food we hope you're enjoying I wanna mention 0:26 just a few things before we get going the first is that elections with minimal water out of Schneider come out at the 0:31 end of this month we an email out on the twin deserves so if you're on plan and you're on our site will be able to get 0:38 the updates for that the boudin and whatever on that sort of thing next I'll explain the format and then 0:44 I'll get started with the brief introduction of speakers and we'll get going here first the format as usual it is going to 0:50 allow for debate so we're gonna have clothing productions by each speaker starting with our guest speaker 0:56 purchased upon detail and we'll have a ten minute rebuttal in the same order on the Washington answer session with you 1:03 the members of the audience so let's start with her grandmother Stephen grant 1:08 practices with assembly wall group in Dublin in the field intellectual property is most particular expertise as 1:14 the prosecution of us had an application that originated in and offices he's been admitted to 1:20 practice before the ten years the US Patent and Trademark Office the Supreme Court of Ohio they go in there namaha a 1:25 federal district court and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals he's been frequent speaker continuing legal education courses as well as 1:32 general education presentations for adventures writers and artists he's a regular contributor to the newsletter of 1:37 the Ohio State Bar Association intellectual property law section he said a number of laws around the country including at warrants and he's their 1:44 first teaching ability and stephan kinsella is a registered patent attorney and general counsel for applied 1:50 optoelectronics already former partner with 20 more he's pressed me to run into patent applications where i've had 1:56 clients ability intelligent and others this is Beach FL dental lumineer seasoned student editor of Liberty and a 2:02 pers and director at least ten indistinctly innovative freedom he's published numerous articles and books on 2:08 IP long and as you know law and application of libertarian principles of equal topics including international 2:14 investment political risk and dispute resolution of practitioners di Louisiana's civil law engineering and 2:20 proxy's Institute in 2008 before my actual blood pressure stopped extra 2:26 policy logging currently teaches that the online leave is happening on intellectual property or libertarian legal theory with that please join me 2:33 motivate first time develop thanks much 3:12 okay got my talent one here it's good to be here thank you come on I'm going to 3:18 start out with some sort of Austrian economics type observations human beings 3:26 in this world are largely dissatisfied creatures this is why we act humans 3:33 employ means that are causally efficacious at changing the state of affairs that would otherwise occur so if 3:39 to achieve ends they have to ameliorate their health uneasiness this is amaziing idea these means which 3:47 in our bodies are necessarily scarce or rivals this means that there's a possibility of violent conflict when two 3:55 people struggle over a given scarce resource as the Austrian libertarian philosopher and economist of hunter 4:02 Mahatma says only because scarcity exists is there even a problem of formulating moral laws insofar as goods 4:10 are super abundant or free goods no conflict over the use of goods as possible and no action coordination is 4:16 needed hence it follows that any ethic correctly conceived must be formulated 4:21 as a theory of property ie a theory of the assignment of rights of exclusive control over scarce means because only 4:28 then does it become possible to avoid otherwise inescapable and irresolvable 4:34 conflict 4:41 so in other words what libertarians favor is peace cooperation and prosperity and therefore we favor the 4:48 assignment of property rights so there are resources that are scarce can be used peacefully and productively and 4:54 cooperatively and in particular what we favor is the assignment of property rights as follows each person owns his 5:02 own body and he also owns resources that he homesteads or that he acquires by 5:07 contract from a previous owner this is exactly why a growing number of 5:13 libertarians including myself oppose patent and copyright we view the grant of such artificial rights by the state 5:20 as statist socialist and theft this is because these rights grant to third 5:25 parties say inventors artists and creators of veto right over how owners use their own property in effect patent 5:34 and copyright makes innovators and creators a co-owner with the original owner of the owners property and this is 5:41 just theft is the redistribution of wealth it's really that simple this is the problem of patent and copyright so 5:48 for example a patentee acquires partial ownership rights and other people's property but he did not homestead the 5:56 property he has no contract with the owner and the owner has never committed any kind of tort or crime that justifies 6:02 weakening his property rights or redistributing them them to the to the patentee now the question arises how 6:10 contemporary into favor property rights and other advocates of capitalism in the 6:15 free market how could they have been bamboozled into thinking that an anti-competitive monopolist to grant of 6:20 state privilege by a criminal state be justified so let's just take a quick look at the history of the sordid 6:27 origins of patenting copyright as a Eric Johnson a law professor writes in an 6:33 upcoming study the monopolies now understand his copyrights and patents were originally created by royal decree a 6:39 stowed it's a form of favoritism and control as the power of the monarchy dwindled these charter anomalies were 6:45 reformed and essentially by default they wound up with the hands of authors and adventures so let's just think about 6:51 copyright copyright in a modern sense originated when Queen Mary created the 6:57 stationers company 1557 which had the exclusive franchise over book publishing 7:02 so this was based upon the monarchies desire to control the press and to control this the use of the printing 7:09 press which is emerging into censor ideas and to have only approved ideas spread in 1710 was that to the ban 7:17 formalized this idea of copyright and gave authors a copyright and one reason 7:22 authors were happy to have its copyright was now they had the right to control their own works so in a way the the 7:28 reason that they approved and won a copyright was to remove the state's control over their own works it wasn't 7:35 to be able to extort money from people using their words as for patent excuse 7:43 me the English Parliament enacted the statute of monopolies in 1624 and this 7:48

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 077. Lions of Liberty podcast. From Marc Clair's podcast description: Episode 1: Stephan Kinsella September 13, 2013 In this inaugural edition of the Lions of Liberty Podcast, host Marc Clair interviews libertarian legal scholar Stephan Kinsella about the concept of intellectual property and the libertarian framework. Lions of Liberty Podcast, Ep. 1: Stephan Kinsella Finally! The long-anticipated Lions of Liberty Podcast has arrived! In this first episode, I spoke with Stephan Kinsella regarding the subject of intellectual property within the libertarian framework.  Kinsella is the author of Against Intellectual Property, and is one of the best-known voices in the libertarian community against the concept of intellectual property. I found the conversation with Kinsella very interesting and I feel it will be helpful not only for those trying to sort out a stance on intellectual property, but also for those new to libertarian ideas in sorting out some of the finer details of a libertarian framework. Before launching into tirades about “private property” and “contracts”, it’s important to have a firm grasp on the definitions of these terms. I first came to the IP debate through the “debate” between Kinsella and Robert Wenzel on the issue, which served more as car-crash entertainment than an intellectual study. But it did peak my interest in an area I had honestly not given much thought to before. After reading his book and speaking further with him on the issue, I find it difficult to present a case in favor of intellectual property, at least as we know the concept today. The biggest problem I see with intellectual property is that it attempts to bind third parties, not privy to any sort of contract, and prohibit them from using their own property in a way they see fit. I tend to agree with Kinsella’s view that intellectual property is nothing more than the State’s granting of a monopoly on an idea or a pattern of ideas. The biggest difference between Kinsella and myself is that I may see a private society, sans the State, as coming up with more ways to protect their works through contracts and/or user agreements, but ultimately that can only go so far. Any differences we may have on just how far private arrangements to protect the work of artists may go are largely moot. When it comes to forming a libertarian position on a subject, we should not be asking “how will this work?” but “what is right?” Your feedback is welcome and encouraged! This is my first attempt at conducting an interview or producing a podcast, so I promise I won’t be offended. Drop me an email at marc@lionsofliberty.com. I have some interesting guests planned for future shows, so stay tuned!

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 077. In this podcast, recorded during my morning constitutional (stroll/walk), I discuss my take on how best to view the libertarian idea: its origins and basic concepts, from homesteading to body-ownership, inalienability, intellectual property, "coercion" vs. aggression, state vs. government, tactics and strategy and terminology and semantics vs. substance, etc., drawing mostly on the ideas of Locke, Rothbard, and Hoppe. Relevant links: How We Come To Own Ourselves, Mises Daily (Sep. 7, 2006) (Mises.org blog discussion; audio version) The Problem with “Coercion” “What Libertarianism Is,” Mises Daily (August 21, 2009) Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach, 12:1 Journal of Libertarian Studies 51 (Spring 1996). A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse “Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes,” Mises Economics Blog (June 23, 2011) (C4SIF) Hoppe, chs. 1-2 of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995), p. 132. (From an earlier note of mine about this: I have since changed my mind on the some of the issues regarding the Hayekian “knowledge problem” and Leoni’s work in this regard, as I have noted in subsequent articles, such as the Knowledge, Calculation, Conflict, and Law article, footnote 5. Oh, that I had heeded Jeff Herbener’s comments on an earlier manuscript, but I either got these comments too late, or did not fully appreciate them at the time. More information on the calculation debate.)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 076. IP Debate with Chris (aka "Sid Non-Vicious") LeRoux, hosted by James Cox. LeRoux claims to be an anarcho-capitalist and former Randian but not a libertarian (he doesn't like labels, you see). He was recently arguing kinda for IP-but-not-really on Shanklin's podcast (see below), and contacted me  about these issues. As you can see from the "debate" it's not clear what his position is or why he even wanted to debate me, or what he really disagrees with me on, but, .... here it is. Cox did a good guy trying to moderate, but it ended up being a mess, as it always is with people that are not clear on basic libertarian concepts and not totally opposed to IP. Transcript below. Relevant links: How We Come To Own Ourselves, Mises Daily (Sep. 7, 2006) (Mises.org blog discussion; audio version) A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 [based on paper presented at Law and Economics panel, Austrian Scholars Conference, Auburn, Alabama (April 17, 1999)] “Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes,” Mises Economics Blog (June 23, 2011) (C4SIF) Hoppe, chs. 1-2 of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach The Libertarian Approach to Negligence, Tort, and Strict Liability: Wergeld and Partial Wergeld The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression The Libertarian View on Fine Print, Shrinkwrap, Clickwrap Youtube: https://youtu.be/14POluaBwqU James Cox's original Youtube: https://youtu.be/wgJOeWU1Bek Shownotes (Grok): Debate Introduction and Setup [00:00:01 - 00:01:12] Host James Cox introduces the IP debate between Stephan Kinsella and Chris LeRoux, noting their positions (Kinsella against IP, LeRoux's stance to be clarified). Cox promotes his YouTube channel and outlines rules: 3-minute opening statements, alternating questions with 2-minute responses, initial 20-minute limit, possible extension. LeRoux agrees to go first. LeRoux's Opening: Contract Rights as Absolute [00:01:12 - 00:02:13] LeRoux claims Kinsella has admitted contract rights are absolute in an anarcho-capitalist system, not subject to scarcity or rivalrousness interpretations. He argues interfering with contracts (what Kinsella calls IP) is violence, violating nonviolence principles. LeRoux yields his remaining time. Kinsella's Opening: Clarifying Positions and IP Definition [00:02:18 - 00:05:19] Kinsella requests LeRoux clarify his position, noting prior exchanges where LeRoux rejected IP labels, libertarianism, and scarcity's role in property. Kinsella affirms contract rights but argues they can't replicate IP, as IP is in rem (against the world), while contracts are in personam (between parties). He defines IP as state-protected rights in non-rivalrous resources (ideas, patterns), including copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, deeming them illegitimate as they undermine real property rights. Contracts are title transfers, not binding promises; third parties can't "interfere" with contracts, only property. Initial Back-and-Forth: Contract as Core of Property [00:05:19 - 00:08:20] LeRoux asserts contract rights are all that exist; no need for scarcity/rivalrousness. Anything voluntarily traded is property, irrelevant to others' opinions. In anarcho-capitalism, contracts include third-party arbitration. Current IP issues: tax-funded, enforces involuntary contracts. Voluntary restrictions (e.g., no file sharing) must be upheld. Scarcity is subjective/physical, individually assessed. Kinsella critiques LeRoux's incoherence, clarifies scarcity as rivalry (not abundance), defends rivalrous resources as ownable (e.g., bucket of sand). Modern IP's flaws include involuntary application beyond taxes. Debate on Rivalrousness and Property Definitions [00:08:20 - 00:12:36] LeRoux calls rivalrousness an "anti-concept," nonsensical; voluntary trade defines property. Ideas drive property; can be commoditized/contracted (e.g., oppose copyright but discuss voluntary "do not redistribute" book contracts). Kinsella rebuts: contracts don't require ownership (e.g., conditional payments); human action uses rivalrous means. Enforceable book use restrictions possible but unlikely due to piracy incentives. Clarifying Disagreements and Contract Examples [00:12:40 - 00:16:30] LeRoux questions Kinsella on contracts without property (denied by Kinsella); defines property as exclusive control/use/disposal. Fraud involves trading unowned items. Debate shifts to open interchange per moderator. LeRoux asserts self-ownership includes labor; Kinsella prefers body ownership, questions "self" vagueness. Self-Ownership, Body Ownership, and Mind Control [00:16:30 - 00:19:00] LeRoux defends self-ownership encompassing mind/soul/ideas/actions; rejects body-only distinction as limiting. Kinsella argues mind is brain epiphenomenon; ownership enables actions/secrecy without owning thoughts separately. Interpersonal conflict arises from rivalrous resources; property rules resolve disputes. Hypothetical on Third-Party Book Copying [00:19:00 - 00:21:37] Cox poses scenario: Seller sells book to buyer; buyer's cousin borrows, copies, distributes without knowledge. LeRoux: Cousin innocent if no contract/trespass; issue is access violation. Current system illegitimate (tax-funded, involuntary). Kinsella: No liability for cousin; information unownable. Scarcity subjective in goods recognition, but rivalrousness objective. Property Origins, Ideas, and Conflict [00:21:37 - 00:24:31] Kinsella: All examples involve rivalrous things; secure property via first-use/contract. Predicts no IP-like system in free society. LeRoux: Minimal disagreements; simpler solution via contracts/property without scarcity/rivalrousness. Information controllable/ownable (e.g., ideas in mind under exclusive control via body ownership). Information Ownership and Invasive Scanning Example [00:24:31 - 00:29:42] LeRoux: Own mind/ideas/memories unless violence; critiques Kinsella's organ scanning example—aggression if invasive (trespass), not copying itself. Rejects arbitrary property limits; anything voluntarily traded is property/commodity a priori. Kinsella: Distinguishes property right vs. object; rivalrousness enables conflict, necessitating property rules. IP undercuts scarce resource rights. Intellectual Property Non-Existence and Origins [00:29:42 - 00:33:42] LeRoux: No IP; all property intellectual in origin (ideas drive action). Property prior to conflict/judgment; metaphysical fact (exclusive control absent violence). Even alone on island, property exists. Kinsella: Property normative/social; disputes always over rivalrous resources. Defining Key Terms: IP, Scarcity, Rivalrousness [00:33:42 - 00:38:02] LeRoux requests definitions. Kinsella: IP as positive laws (patent/copyright/trademark/trade secret) granting monopoly on intellect creations; incompatible with libertarian property. Scarcity as rivalry (conflict possible). LeRoux: Kinsella fights "ghost"; oppose state via anti-taxation/involuntary contracts, not scarcity/rivalrousness opinions. Contract Enforcement and Arbitration in Anarchism [00:38:02 - 00:42:53] Kinsella: Contracts enforceable; questions LeRoux on divergences. LeRoux: Contracts absolute, override scarcity opinions. Tangent on Kinsella's books/copyright: Kinsella explains automatic copyright, Creative Commons licensing; not hypocritical as system-imposed. LeRoux defends working within system. Rivalrousness Critique and Multi-Use Examples [00:42:53 - 00:50:10] Kinsella defines rivalrous: one-user-at-a-time resource, enabling conflict. LeRoux: Counter with shared use (e.g., rented house to multiple, tours); owner retains exclusive control, grants limited access—rivalrousness irrelevant. Kinsella: Shared use via contract (in personam); book "do not redistribute" as co-ownership or conditional damages. Predictions on Free Society Systems and Absurd Contracts [00:50:10 - 00:52:45] LeRoux: Absurd contracts unenforced in anarchism (no damages, costs deter arbitration). Kinsella: Can't punt to arbitration; disputes need norms (e.g., neighbor house use). LeRoux: Always check contract/trespass; rejects social contracts. Agreement on Key Scenarios and Divergences [00:52:45 - 00:57:06] Kinsella poses hypotheticals: Reverse engineering invention (LeRoux: allowed without contract); downloading Harry Potter without contract (LeRoux: no violation). Kinsella: Agrees, sees alignment. LeRoux: Disagrees on full agreement; his theory simpler without scarcity/rivalrousness. Property Rights, Homesteading, and Ownership Nuances [00:57:06 - 01:03:23] LeRoux: Ownership exclusive control (fact, not right); objective/metaphysical. Kinsella: Normative/social. Tangent on children: LeRoux parents as custodians, children homestead selves; Kinsella body ownership primary, not homesteaded (actor presupposes body). Covenants, Easements, and IP as Imposed Restrictions [01:03:23 - 01:07:15] Kinsella: Legitimate contractual easements/restrictive covenants (e.g., neighborhood rules). IP imposes use restrictions without contract—aggression. LeRoux: Agrees, current system enforces involuntary contracts. Final Clarifications and Agreements [01:07:15 - 01:12:00] Cox: Agreement on no state enforcement against non-parties; disagreements terminological. LeRoux: Still disputes rivalrousness centrality. Kinsella: IP bad, contracts good. Tangent on water diversion hypothetical: Kinsella deems aggression if harms downstream without contract. Tangents on Legal System and Personal Views [01:12:00 - 01:26:04] Discussion shifts: Defense attorneys legitimizing system (LeRoux critical); oaths/licensing opposed. Influences (objectivism); labels (anarcho-capitalist vs. libertarian).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 075. This is my appearance on Michael Shanklin’s Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast with Michael Shanklin (Aug. 26, 2013). We discussed a variety of issues, as noted in the subject line. Some background material for these topics can be found at: Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan, Anti-state.com (Sept. 19, 2002) (reply to Bob Murphy and Gene Callahan, Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethic: A Critique; debate discussed in this forum) How We Come to Own Ourselves Hoppe, “Of Private, Common, and Public Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization” What Libertarianism Is The Blockean Proviso The relation between the non-aggression principle and property rights: a response to Division by Zer0 Thoughts on the Latecomer and Homesteading Ideas; or, why the very idea of “ownership” implies that only libertarian principles are justifiable California Gay Marriage Law Overturned: What Should Libertarians Think? Advice for Prospective Libertarian Law Students Our previous discussions: KOL 043 | Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast, with Michael Shanklin: Bitcoin, Legal Reform, Morality of Voting, Rothbard on Copyright  and KOL 025 | Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast, with Michael Shanklin: Intellectual Property, Ron Paul vs RonPaul.Com, Aaron Swartz, Corporatism.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 074. This is my interview from The Libertarian. It was released as The Libertarian: Podcast #1. We discussed libertarian theory, Hans-Hermann Hoppe's libertarian views, argumentation ethics, immigration, and related matters. https://youtu.be/r4_dST5VvAY For further background on these topics see: Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders What Libertarianism Is I also did a previous written interview for that site: Interview by The Libertarian (2013).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 073. I was a guest today on Freedom Feens radio. We talked about a variety of issues—property rights, education, and the Libertarian Macho Flash, among other topics.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 072. I was interviews for Vrijheid Radio (Netherlands) last week, by host Henri Serton. We talked about libertarian property theory, Locke, intellectual property, and related issues. I think it was a very good interview, maybe one of the best I've participated in, due in no small part to Serton's intelligent prodding and questions. SoundCloud link;

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 071. This is my appearance at a New York University School of Law/Journal of Law and Liberty Symposium: “Plain Meaning in Context: Can Law Survive its Own Language?” (February 18, 2011); my panel was “Intellectual Property Law and Policy." Our panel was preceded by a keynote speech on a somewhat unrelated topic by Professor Richard Epstein, and featured me and two law professors specializing in IP law. After Epstein's keynote speech, (( Richard A. Epstein, "Plain Meaning in Context: Can Law Survive Its Own Language?", New York University Journal of Law and Liberty 6, no. 2 (2011): 359–392. )) my talk was first. The podcast here omits Epstein's speech and begins with my own talk, and continues with the other two panelists' talks and the Q&A session in which I answered a few questions. The full video, which includes Epstein's introductory talk, is online here and included below. Note: near the end of Epstein's speech (at 48:11, in the embedded video version) I asked him a question about federalism and the doctrine of selective incorporation; he gave a fair answer, but one I disagree with on the grounds the privileges and immunities clause did not unambiguously mean to incorporate a large set of "fundamental rights" into the Fourteenth Amendment, as Raoul Berger has argued. On the IP panel, a more general Q&A and interpanelist interchange session starts around 1:53:14 in the video (57:35 in this podcast excerpt), with me drawing a lot of the questions from fellow panelists and the audience. I was the only one who used a powerpoint; it cannot be seen from the posted video, so the file is here: The problem with IP, and also embedded also below.