Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 011. This is an interview I did with Lew Rockwell, from 2008: “Intellectual ‘Property,’”, The Lew Rockwell Show (Sept. 24, 2008; archive) (re-podcast as Stephan Kinsella: The Intellectual Property Racket (Aug. 29, 2009). Transcript and Grok analysis below. For more from Lew on IP: “Intellectual Property and Libertarianism,” speech presented at Mises University 2009 (July 30, 2009) [KOL013], re-podcast at The Lew Rockwell Show, #131, as The Intellectual Property Racket (Aug. 19, 2009) (archive; mp3, with Lew’s introduction). Calling Kinsella and Tucker By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. February 15, 2009 Intellectual “Property”: July 24, 2003: "Two classic articles: Gene Callahan’s “Rethinking Patent Law” and Stephan Kinsella’s “Against Intellectual Property (PDF).” https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=aistwfJ1HLQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DaistwfJ1HLQ Shownotes (Grok) Episode Description In this classic 2008 interview, Lew Rockwell speaks with patent attorney and libertarian theorist Stephan Kinsella about the fundamental problems with intellectual property (IP) law. Kinsella explains why patents and copyrights are not true property rights but instead government-granted monopolies that infringe on legitimate physical property rights. He discusses the moral case against IP, its conflict with libertarian principles, Murray Rothbard’s views on contracts as a potential alternative, the aggressive tactics of the RIAA and MPAA, and where Ayn Rand went wrong in defending the U.S. constitutional approach to IP. Recorded shortly after Hurricane Ike, the conversation also touches on government responses to natural disasters before diving deep into the IP debate. This episode remains highly relevant in the age of digital copying, encryption, and ongoing battles over information control. *** Here’s a revised, more detailed set of shownotes for your podcast episode. I’ve expanded the summary with clearer descriptions of the key arguments, added topical headers for better navigation, and kept it engaging and professional. Episode Title Intellectual Property: Why Patents and Copyrights Are Not Legitimate Property Rights Stephan Kinsella on The Lew Rockwell Show (September 24, 2008) Episode Description In this insightful 2008 interview, Lew Rockwell sits down with patent attorney and libertarian theorist Stephan Kinsella to examine the philosophical and moral problems with intellectual property (IP) law. Kinsella argues that patents and copyrights are not true property rights but government-created monopolies that necessarily infringe on tangible, physical property rights. The discussion covers how enforcing IP requires an intrusive state bureaucracy, functions as a form of wealth redistribution, and conflicts with core libertarian principles of property and non-aggression. Recorded shortly after Hurricane Ike, the conversation opens with a critique of government disaster response before diving into the IP debate — including Rothbard’s views, the futility of stopping digital copying, aggressive tactics by the RIAA, and Ayn Rand’s errors on the topic. This concise but powerful interview remains highly relevant in today’s world of digital content, AI-generated works, and ongoing debates over information “ownership.” Runtime: Approximately 15 minutes Detailed Summary of Arguments Opening: Government Response to Hurricane Ike The episode begins with Kinsella, then in Baton Rouge awaiting power restoration after the hurricane, critiquing government-imposed curfews and attempts to blame private utility companies for delays in restoring electricity. He highlights how officials deflect responsibility onto the private sector while expanding their own control. The Core Case Against Intellectual Property Kinsella explains that most libertarians and economists initially assume IP is a legitimate form of property. However, he argues this view is mistaken. IP laws create “positive rights” that dilute and intrude upon existing tangible property rights — much like welfare rights require taxation and invasion of private bank accounts. Enforcing patents and copyrights demands a large state bureaucracy and effectively redistributes wealth from ordinary property owners to a privileged class of “innovators” who register government documents. The moral problem is central: IP cannot exist without state coercion against peaceful use of one’s own physical property. Rothbard on Patents, Copyrights, and Contractual Alternatives Lew Rockwell asks about Murray Rothbard’s position. Kinsella notes that Rothbard correctly viewed patents as illegitimate government monopolies but was more open to copyrights. Rothbard suggested that contractual notices (e.g., stamping “copyright” on a mousetrap) could legitimately restrict buyers. Kinsella agrees this works for direct contracting parties but criticizes extending it to third parties, as that implicitly treats knowledge or patterns as ownable “property.” He believes more work can be done on voluntary contractual mechanisms in a free market, though government antitrust laws currently block many potential private solutions to free-rider problems. Widespread Libertarian and Public Opposition to IP Enforcement Kinsella observes strong opposition to IP among younger, tech-savvy, and principled libertarians (especially those influenced by Rothbardian property-rights theory). He compares the RIAA to the IRS — widely despised and seen as illegitimate. Even many in the music and film industries condemn the RIAA’s lawsuits against thousands of customers. The conversation highlights extreme proposals, such as allowing copyright holders to remotely destroy computers via viruses (advocated by Sen. Orrin Hatch), which Kinsella calls obviously criminal behavior the government would otherwise condemn. The Natural Role of Copying and the Futility of Suppression Copying is portrayed as a fundamental human activity — essential for learning, transmitting knowledge, and creative progress. Artists and inventors have always built upon existing ideas, plots, and technologies. Kinsella (referencing Cory Doctorow) notes that the internet is the ultimate “copying machine,” and technology will only make copying easier. Attempts to suppress it will require increasingly draconian measures, leading to selective enforcement and eventual failure. Cryptography and encryption will further undermine enforcement efforts. Where Ayn Rand Went Wrong on IP Kinsella critiques Ayn Rand’s strong defense of patents and copyrights. He points to her near-religious adherence to the U.S. Constitution and the Founders’ schemes. Specific errors include her mistaken belief in “first-to-file” patent rules (U.S. law at the time was first-to-invent) and her contorted justifications for existing law. The deeper flaw, Kinsella argues, is treating “creation” as an independent source of property rights. Creation adds value to already-owned resources but does not create new ownership claims over patterns or ideas. This notion parallels liberal positive rights and inevitably requires state legislation and bureaucracy — both anti-libertarian. Key Resources & Links Stephan Kinsella’s foundational book: Against Intellectual Property (2001/2008) – Free PDF and print editions available from the Mises Institute. https://mises.org/library/book/against-intellectual-property Stephan Kinsella’s website (extensive IP section): https://stephankinsella.com Mises.org archive of Kinsella’s articles LewRockwell.com archive of Kinsella’s writings Original interview page: https://stephankinsella.com/as_paf_podcast/kol011-intellectual-property-the-lew-rockwell-show-sept-24-2008/ Guest Bio Stephan Kinsella is a practicing patent attorney, libertarian writer, and anarcho-capitalist thinker. His work, especially Against Intellectual Property, has revolutionized libertarian thinking on IP by demonstrating that patents and copyrights are incompatible with genuine property rights and require state aggression. He maintains an active archive on legal theory, Austrian economics, and libertarianism at stephankinsella.com. Production Notes Interviewer: Lew Rockwell Original Air Date: September 24, 2008 (The Lew Rockwell Show) Republished as KOL011 on the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast Produced by LewRockwell.com Tags intellectual property, patents, copyrights, Stephan Kinsella, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, RIAA, property rights, libertarianism, Mises Institute, against intellectual property, free market, government monopoly Analysis using 5 World class Frameworks (I have no idea what this is, it was Juan Carpio's suggestion) Here's a fresh, transcript-based analysis of the September 24, 2008 Lew Rockwell Show interview (#32) with Stephan Kinsella on intellectual property (IP). The conversation is concise (~15 minutes) but dense, covering the core anti-IP case from a principled libertarian/property-rights perspective. Key points from the transcript: IP (patents, copyrights) is not legitimate property. Enforcing it requires state intrusion into existing tangible (real/physical) property rights. Both leftists and many right-libertarians err by treating IP as "property"; the former oppose it for anti-commercial reasons, the latter endorse it mistakenly. Enforcement creates a bureaucratic system that redistributes wealth from ordinary property owners to state-favored "innovators" via registration. Critique of Murray Rothbard: Rothbard correctly saw patents as monopoly grants and sketched a contractual approach (e.g., mousetrap example with notice to buyers), but erred by extending it to third parties, which implicitly treats knowledge/ideas as ownable property. Contractual and market mechanisms could address many IP concerns in a free society, but government (e.g., antitrust laws) currently blocks many such adaptations.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 010. I appeared recently on Decline to State, discussing Locke, property rights, intellectual property, anarchy, and so on; see KOL009. I also participated in the Aftershow. From their description: Show #39.1: Aftershow for January 23 2013 Stephan Kinsella joins us for the aftershow. He answers some listener questions, talks about dispute resolution and contract, and shares his many insights into the liberty movement at large. Enjoy this special bonus content, everyone! Around 3:30, Rudd-O mentions that his having his eyes opened on IP helped him become a full-fledged libertarian/anarchist. It's interesting to me that there are so many paths to liberty: Rand, Read, Bastiat, Milton Friedman, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Ron Paul, and even IP abolitionism. Amazing.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 009. I appeared recently on Decline to State, discussing Locke, property rights, intellectual property, anarchy, and so on. From their description: Show #39: January 23 2013 with Stephan Kinsella — by The Decline to State team — last modified Jan 29, 2013 02:15 PM The Decline to State team sits down with patent lawyer and libertarian author Stephan Kinsella. We delve deep into the roots of property rights - where do they come from? Was Locke wrong? Why is intellectual property fundamentally different from normal property? How long does it take Decline to State to bring up bitcoins? Listen to find out answers to these perplexing questions! The Aftershow appears in KOL010. One interesting thing we discuss is the fact that in libertarian discussions nowadays, it's only a matter of time before Bitcoin comes up—or, in my case, intellectual property. Sort of a libertarian version of Godwin's Law. So it was funny that after this was discussed, we went for a long stretch avoiding both topics, until I called to the hosts' attention that we had succeeded in doing this.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 008. This is an audiobook version of my Against Intellectual Property (1 hr 54 min.); .mp3 format or .m4b iTunes book format (each about 57M); also available in a Mises.org version and on iTunes U. Narrated by Jock Coats. A second version is here: KOL373 | Against Intellectual Property (audiobook #2). Others audio versions of my work at https://stephankinsella.com/media/#audio-books. [fvplayer id="9"]

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 007. This is an audio version of my article "What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist," LewRockwell.com (Jan. 20, 2004), narrated by yours truly. https://youtu.be/ND-__-6ptGo

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 006. This is an audio version of my article How We Come To Own Ourselves, Mises Daily (Sep. 7, 2006) (Mises.org blog discussion; narrated by Graham Wright). Alternative version:

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 005. This is an audio version of my article, “What Libertarianism Is,” Mises Daily (August 21, 2009) (narrated by Graham Wright). The article was originally published in Hülsmann & Kinsella, eds., Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Mises Institute, 2009). Update: See also the version by Duma Denga of ManPatria (KOL422). Alternative youtube version: https://youtu.be/enx5AKPS67Y

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 004. Update: See also Thoughts on Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery, Alienability vs. Inalienability, Property and Contract, Rothbard and Evers (Jan. 9, 2022); Batting about voluntary slavery (Oct. 5, 2011); Slavery, Inalienability, Economics, and Ethics See also Walter Block's response: Walter E. Block, Block, "Rejoinder to Kinsella on ownership and the voluntary slave contract,” Management Education Science Technology Journal (MESTE) 11, no. 1 (Jan. 2023): 1-8 [pdf] Update: See KOL395 | Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection (PFS 2022). . Transcript below. Walter and me at my dad's house in Prairieville, Louisiana, for a (Catholic) baptism party for my son, October 2003 My longtime friend Walter Block was recently in town (Houston) and stayed over at my house one night. While we visited we had several discussions on libertarian theory, as we usually do when we see each other. He agreed to let me record a discussion on one of the few issues we do not completely agree on: voluntary slavery; we recorded this last night (Jan. 26, 2013). Walter believes voluntary slavery contracts ought to be enforceable in a private law society, and in this I believe he is wrong and in the minority of libertarians (with Nozick, say). We touched on a variety of issues, including debtor's prison, how acquisition of body-rights differs from Lockean homesteading, and the like. Youtube: Some of my writing relevant to this topic and our discussion include: A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith, Winter 1998-99, Journal of Libertarian Studies. How We Come To Own Ourselves, Mises Daily (Sep. 7, 2006) (Mises.org blog discussion; audio version) Causation and Aggression (co-authored with Patrick Tinsley), The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, vol. 7, no. 4 (winter 2004): 97-112 Walter's articles on this topic include: Toward a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability: A Critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Gordon, Smith, Kinsella and Epstein, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 17, No. 2, Spring 2003, pp. 39-85 “Alienability: Reply to Kuflik,” Humanomics. Vol. 23, No. 3, 2007, pp. 117-136 “Are Alienability and the Apriori of Argument Logically Incompatible?” Dialogue, Vol. 1, No. 1. 2004. Alienability, Inalienability, Paternalism and the Law: Reply to Kronman American Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 28, No. 3, Summer 2001, pp. 351-371 Market Inalienability Once Again: Reply to Radin Thomas Jefferson Law Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, Fall 1999, pp. 37-88 Alienability, Inalienability, Paternalism and the Law: Reply to Kronman   Update: see this Facebook post: Stephan Kinsella: I agree with David Gordon. I disagree with pro-voluntary slavery libertarians, like Walter Block (Thomas L. Knapp is another, though he pettifogs on the use of the term "voluntary slavery"). Jeremiah Dyke: I too think it's insane not to have the ability to contract any percentage of your labor for any duration of time. [Sarcasm] Stephan Kinsella: This is not an argument. Abilities don't come from opinions. Let's be clear: to justify voluntary slavery means you have to justify the use of force by a would-be "master" against a would-be "slave", if the slave tries to run away or changes his mind or disobeys an order. The libertarian thinks use of violence against another person's body is unjustified aggression, unless it is (a) consented to, or (b) in response to aggression.  But the slave has not committed aggression, so (b) is not a possible justification. Some alienabilists disingenuously argue that it IS "aggression" since the master owns the slave's body, so it's trespass (aggression) for the slave to use the master's property (the slave's body) in ways the owner (master) does not consent to. This argument is disingenuous because it is question-begging; it presupposes the legitimacy of body-alienability, in order to prove it. So this does not fly. I will say that I get very tired of people who engage in question-begging arguments. They do this all the time in IP -- where they label an act of copying "stealing" in order to show that what was "stolen" must have been ownable property. Horrible reasoning. I hope you don't engage in this kind of dishonest trick.  As for (a); clearly the slave who tries to run away does NOT consent to the force the master wants to apply to him. The only way the alienabilist can get around this is to say that the PREVIOUS consent the slave gave (say, a week before) is still somehow applicable, i.e. that the slave cannot change his mind. Why not? because ... well ... because ... well ... because the slavery contract was binding! So we see, yet again, the sneaky and dishonest resort to question-begging; slavery contracts are binding because they are binding. Neat trick, that!  The reason people can change their minds is that it does not commit aggression. And the reason a previous statement of intent is relevant is simply that it provides evidence of what the current consent is. It's a standing order, but one that can be overridden with better, more recent, evidence. If a girl tells her boyfriend he may kiss her now, and any time he feels like it in the future, then when tomorrow comes he is reasonable in assuming that she is still actually consenting NOW to another kiss, even if she says nothing, because she set up that presumption earlier. Her previous statement was not a binding contract, but just a way of establishing a standing presumption about what her ongoing consent IS. But if he goes to kiss her and she says NO, then we know that the previous statement about what her future consent WOULD be, was a bad prediction and has been undermined by the better, present/current evidence she is giving.  It is no different in all the voluntary slavery situations. *** TRANSCRIPT Stephan Kinsella vs. Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery Jan. 26, 2013 00:00:01 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, so this is Stephan and Walter is here sitting next to me in my billiards room, former billiards room.  There’s no billiards table anymore.  My wife took it out.  There’s just a bunch of gray wallpaper.  And Walter has been here for awhile in Houston.  How do you like our fair city? 00:00:22 WALTER BLOCK: Oh, it’s a wonderful city.  I’m glad to be here, and I’m glad to be on your podcast. 00:00:26 STEPHAN KINSELLA: If we form a new state, I will do what I can to get you welcomed here. 00:00:31 WALTER BLOCK: Oh, you’re very kind.  Thank you. 00:00:33 STEPHAN KINSELLA: So Walter and I have been buddies for awhile, been hashing out issues in paper and in person at Mises events, etc. for quite awhile.  And we’ve talked this weekend—we’ve been together three nights now—about a lot of things: retribution. 00:00:51 WALTER BLOCK: Cabbages and kings. 00:00:54 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Bitcoin a little bit. 00:00:55 WALTER BLOCK: A little bit. 00:00:56 STEPHAN KINSELLA: We didn’t get to fractional reserve banking but… 00:00:58 WALTER BLOCK: IP. 00:00:59 STEPHAN KINSELLA: IP.  Well, there’s not much to talk about there.  We agree on that too much. 00:01:03 WALTER BLOCK: Yeah. 00:01:03 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, so on the issue of voluntary slavery. 00:01:06 WALTER BLOCK: Yes. 00:01:07 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Which we’ve talked about before. 00:01:08 WALTER BLOCK: Yes. 00:01:09 STEPHAN KINSELLA: A little bit and sparred in print. 00:01:13 WALTER BLOCK: Yes. 00:01:14 STEPHAN KINSELLA: So what I thought I would do is try to summarize my take on your take on it, and you tell me where I’m wrong or where we disagree. 00:01:25 WALTER BLOCK: Sounds good. 00:01:26 STEPHAN KINSELLA: All right.  Or my take on our common Rothbardian influence or whatever.  And the one problem I have with your analysis is that you rely upon a type of analysis Rothbard makes as well in his Ethics of Liberty like where he talks about debtors’ prison, etc.  And the assumption that I have a problem with is the assumption that if you own something it means you can make a contract about it, or you can sell it.  I’ll put it that way.  And so you always give these hypotheticals about the guy who has little money.  He needs a million bucks to save his kid. 00:02:18 And so he wants to enter into a voluntary slavery contract, which is outlandish because this is probably unlikely, but let’s just assume it.  And so you’re saying that if we don’t allow these contracts, he won’t be able to do the deal, right?  But my question is what is the thing that’s stolen?  And I see this ambiguity in the Rothbardian issue of debtors’ prison as well.  So let’s talk about a typical contract of a debt like you’re talking about.  So someone loans a million bucks to A on a given day.  And they’re supposed to do something in exchange for it: be a slave, repay it in a year with 10% interest, or whatever, right? 00:03:15 WALTER BLOCK: Yeah. 00:03:16 STEPHAN KINSELLA: So the argument is that if you do not comply with the terms of the agreement, then you’re a thief. 00:03:22 WALTER BLOCK: In effect, yes. 00:03:23 STEPHAN KINSELLA: So the question is what has been stolen?  Is it the original sum of money, or is it something in the future when the performance that was not given? 00:03:37 WALTER BLOCK: Well, I think it’s something in the future when the performance that was promised isn’t given because that’s what the contract specifies that you should give.  But are we or are we not getting off the issue of voluntary slavery by talking about debtors’ prison, or do you see it as the same issue? 00:03:53 STEPHAN KINSELLA: I think – well, I think they’re related.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 003. I was interviewed recently by my friend and The Libertarian Standard co-blogger, libertarian philosopher Geoffrey Allan Plauché, and Matthew Alexander for the inaugural episode of their new Prometheus Unbound Podcast. I'm posting here as KOL episode 003. Since we discussed IP and Geoff and Matthew are both fellow anti-IP anarcho-libertarians, I'm sure they won't mind! ;) Prometheus Unbound is an original, well-done, and excellent "webzine featuring news, reviews, interviews, and commentary on speculative fiction and literature from a libertarian perspective." Libertarians and others who enjoy sci-fi, fantasy, literature, etc. should subscribe to their podcast feed. https://youtu.be/8RYvkk3CqOg Here's an excerpt from Geoff's blog post announcing PUP001. PUP001 | Interview with Stephan Kinsella by GEOFFREY ALLAN PLAUCHÉ on JANUARY 24, 2013 @ 11:57 AM · 0 COMMENTS At long last, here is the first episode of our new, original podcast. First, Matthew and I break the ice by briefly talking about what we’ve been reading recently. I had just finished Kameron Hurley’s debut novel God’s War. Overall, I think it’s a good effort with an interesting story and world-building but is not without its flaws. Matthew had recently finished Live Free or Die by John Ringo. It was a 2011 Prometheus Award finalist, not a winner as I mistakenly thought while recording the podcast and, according to Matthew, didn’t deserve to be. Our interview with Stephan takes up most of the episode. It’s around 53 minutes long and starts 9:40 minutes in. For those who don’t already know him, Stephan Kinsella is a patent attorney and prominent libertarian legal scholar. He is best known for his opposition to intellectual property. We invited Stephan on the show to discuss the problems of intellectual property and piracy in the Digital Age. But first we had to ask him about his love of science fiction and fantasy. We got him to mention some of his favorite authors and books (see below for a list), and we even talked about the Hobbit movie for a bit. Then, at about 23:15 in, we dove into the meat of the interview. Stephan explained the historical origin of copyright (censorship) and patents (government grants of monopoly privilege, which is what copyright is now too really), how intellectual property has shaped and distorted the film and publishing industries, including Hollywood’s move to California to avoid patent disputes, and why reform is not enough. We also discussed how the Digital Age — the age of the internet, smartphone, ereader, and globalization — is making the evils of copyright and patents more obvious and acute while at the same time undermining traditional business models built around intellectual property. And finally, we explore ways artistic creators might earn a living in a world without intellectual property laws. Read more>> [local download link]

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 002. A reading of one of my earlier IP articles by Ian Freeman on Free Talk Live, from the 8/31/07 show [FTL audio; starts around 5:25]. The article is "Do patents and copyrights undermine private property?: Yes," Insight magazine, May 21, 2001 (containing a response by CEI's James DeLong). [As noted in the first episode, I will occasionally include in the feed  older material such as interviews, speeches, and readings of various publications, interleaved between newer episodes.]