Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 429. A facebook friend from Brazil, Bruno Pires, corresponded with me about some various issues and we decided to discuss it for a podcast episode. We discuss a variety of issues. See his promoted VPN sponsor Aria VPN. https://youtu.be/a8YdkT2_Tec

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 428. I was a guest on Episode 316 of The Bob Murphy Show, entitled “Stephan Kinsella on Rothbard’s Contributions to Legal Theory." Bob's shownotes: "Stephan joins Bob to discuss his new book, Legal Foundations of a Free Society. They cover Rothbard’s contributions to legal theory, as well as Bob and Stephan’s differing entry points into libertarianism." https://youtu.be/iWx8DKMwk30?si=54KjWm_BndPX4a_e

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 427. Yesterday (April 10, 2024) I participated in Strings Attached: Tracing the Global Systems that Bind, 62nd Annual International Affairs Symposium, Lewis & Clark College, Portland Oregon, Debate 5: Pirates and Patents. Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism? My opponent was Pieter Cleppe. My notes are appended below. https://youtu.be/f_cpqc-oHd0 We got along well and had a nice dinner after the debate. (Unofficial iphone Audio (mp3)) Strings Attached: Tracing the Global Systems that Bind. 62nd Annual International Affairs Symposium Debate 5: Pirates and Patents. Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism? Lewis & Clark College, Portland Oregon April 10, 2024 Stephan Kinsella   Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism? “Patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc, are intangible legal protections that allow creators to monopolize the distribution of their ideas. The international system managing these rights is often praised for promoting and protecting innovation. However, it raises the costs of acquiring new technologies, life-saving medicines, and access to knowledge for developing states. How should international intellectual property standards balance these competing interests?”   Introduction I am a practicing patent and intellectual property, or IP, attorney for 30 years and a libertarian for even longer than that. At the dawn of my career, after many years of research and thought, I came to the conclusion that all forms of IP law are completely unjust. This perspective will inform my remarks today.   Notice my opponent’s remarks were not systematic and did not carefully define the relevant terms. In fact his arguments rested on two false assumptions: that patent and copyright increase innovation, and that IP law is therefore justified.   Imperialism and IP What is imperialism? Imperialism: “a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force.” “Imperialism is when a country extends its power into other territories for economic or political gain.” Now, IP law is prevalent in the west: patent, copyright, trademark, and other forms. There can be little doubt that the west, especially the United States, has used its influence and power to push or even coerce other countries to adopt US-style IP law, primarily patent and copyright This is done sometimes by direct imposition or, more usually, by softer forms of coercion such as investment and free trade agreements or other international treaties Direct imposition/coercion: for example the US expanded Iraqi patent law by decree in 2004, by order of Paul Bremer, the “Administrator” of the “Coalition Provisional Authority” German constitution, or “Basic Law,” 1949, under US domination: Article 96 authorizes the establishment by federal law of the Federal Patent Court Example below: under pressures from the west, the Thai government specifically undertook not to implement Article 8 (on compulsory licensing) for HIV/AIDS treatment Treaties: The Berne Convention already requires member states to have a minimum copyright term of life of the author plus 50 years; the US has added 20 years to this(life plus 70) Treaties such as the Paris Convention and Patent Cooperation Treaty require member states to maintain certain minimum patent protections The US uses its dominant position to force other countries or regions to adopt US-style IP policies via “free trade” agreements and others like Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) 2500 BITs in the world today, many US-sponsored International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution, chapter 6, Part B. The TPP(Trans-Pacific Partnership), an ostensibly free trade agreement, was actually a disguised attempt to force other countries to strengthen their copyright law For example, although it was never finally ratified, during negotiations, the US then twisted Canada’s arm to extend its copyright term as a condition of even being considered for TPP If you want the benefits of free trade with us, you need to put people in jail for “pirating” our Hollywood cronies’ movies and add 20 years to your copyright term https://c4sif.org/2013/10/longer-copyright-terms-stiffer-copyright-penalties-coming-thanks-to-tpp-and-acta/ TPP Exposed: WikiLeaks Publishes Secret Trade Text to Rewrite Copyright Laws, Limit Internet Freedom SOPA II? Obama’s Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Think about it: what does a free trade agreement have to do with local property rights, much less IP rights? The US, at the behest of Hollywood and other special interests, keeps pushing other nations to strengthen protection of copyright. For example, the ACTA(Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), and TPP, which was being pushed by the  entertainment industry “to get SOPA-like laws introduced around the globe.” (Stop Online Piracy Act) SOPA is just another incarnation or variation of related acts, like the  PRO-IP Actof 2008; the corresponding Senate bill, the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA); and others like the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN), so the TPP is morphing into the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership under pressure from US, Mexico’s IP office endorsed ACTA [Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement] and attempted to persuade the legislature to ratify if, after the EU’s parliament rejected it Mexico’s IP Office Surprised Its Congress By Signing ACTA, And Now Hopes To Win Their Support. “Free-trade” pacts export U.S. copyright controls In fact, the Covid-19 Relief Bill Adds Criminal Copyright Streaming Penalties and IP Imperialism The COVID-19 Stimulus Bill Would Make Illegal Streaming a Felony “Provided further, That of the funds provided under this heading, not less than $17,100,000 is for modernization initiatives, of which $10,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2022: Provided further, That not more than $100,000 of the amount appropriated is available for the maintenance of an ‘‘International Copyright Institute’’ in the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress for the purpose of training nationals of developing countries in intellectual property laws and policies…” So there can be no serious doubt that the US and the west have succeeded in having almost every country in the world sign on to the major IP treaties, conform their local law to western IP standards, for patent, copyright, and trademark. Copyright: Berne Convention (1886) and WIPO Copyright Treaty (1996) Patent: Paris Convention (1883); Patent Cooperation Treaty (1970) Trademark: Madrid System There is also the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade(GATT) and the 1994 Uruguay Round which covers IP And the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights(TRIPS) The Mountain of IP Legislation The US also uses its power to nudge or coerce others to strengthen or expand IP via bilateral or multilateral trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties Even though free trade has nothing to do with the local property rights of the other country, much less their IP laws Free trade just means low or zero tariffs so as not to impede trade between nations It does not need to specify the internal legal system or internal property rights regime of each party   Now if the West were somehow encouraging developing nations to adopt stronger property rights and civil liberties, we might not call it imperialism, or we might not mind so much. Everyone seems happy with the way the US transformed Germany and Japan’s legal systems after WWII to have free markets and civil liberties.   The Problem with IP The only way to fully understand the problem of IP imperialism is to understand its nature and why IP laws are unjust and so harmful to nations that are coerced to adopt them In short, patent and copyright laws are completely unjust and should be abolished. They harm consumers by reducing their choice, violating their freedom and rights, increasing prices and reducing innovation. These laws benefit a few major US/western industries—Hollywood/movies (copyright), the music industry (copyright), the pharmaceutical industry (patents/FDA), Big Agriculture (Monsanto) (patents), book and journal publishing (US and Europe; copyright), and some high tech industries (Microsoft, Apple ; copyright, patents, trademark)—at the expense of US consumers and developing countries who are forced to pay higher prices to enrich these US special interests Re Monsanto: See Jeff Tucker, Who Poisoned Our Food? Libertarians often rail against taxation, central banking, government-run schools, redistribution, war, and victimless crime laws like drug laws, but patent and copyright are as bad or worse than most of these things. Very insidious and harmful There is nothing good about IP law There is nothing to “balance” There are no good arguments for IP All IP law should be immediately and completely repealed Western countries certainly should not impose IP law on developing countries   History of IP Statute of Anne 1710, Statute of Monopolies 1623 Elaborate Culminating with the US Constitution’s copyright clause and the expansion of IP globally, leading to modern IP treaties, such as those already mentioned   The purpose and nature of property rights

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 426. Related: On "Unowned" State Property, Legal Positivism, Ownership vs. Possession, Immigration, Public Roads, and the Bum in the Library Adam Haman and Matt Sands on Immigration, Property Rights, and Hostile Encirclement Libertarian Answer Man: Homesteading Donuts, Hostile Encirclement, and Prostitution as Selling One’s Body A Tour Through Walter Block’s Oeuvre Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project, which aims to promote the Non-Aggression Principle as a universal peace agreement, and I discussed various issues including: immigration and open borders, and so on. (See previous episode with Matthew, KOL372 | Discussing Contract Theory, Restitution, Punishment, with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity and KOL362 | California Gold #6, with Matt Sands: Defining Libertarianism, Anarchism and Voluntaryism.) https://youtu.be/zXKxc8QxqKo Related links: Switzerland, Immigration, Hoppe, Raico, Callahan A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders, LewRockwell.com, September 1, 2005 Van Dun on Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement Libertarian Answer Man: Homesteading Donuts, Hostile Encirclement, and Prostitution as Selling One’s Body From Grok: Here are the updated show notes for the podcast episode at https://stephankinsella.com/as_paf_podcast/kol426-immigration-homesteading-donuts-sands/, incorporating additional details about the discussion on forestalling and hostile encirclement, as informed by the provided posts and the YouTube transcript: Show Notes: KOL426 | Immigration, Homesteading, Donuts, SandsIn this episode of the Stephan Kinsella on Liberty podcast, libertarian legal theorist Stephan Kinsella engages in a detailed, two-hour discussion with Matthew Sands, who runs the Nations of Sanity project, focusing on libertarian principles surrounding property rights, homesteading, immigration, and the contentious concepts of forestalling and hostile encirclement. The conversation delves into the nuances of libertarian philosophy, particularly self-ownership, the non-aggression principle (NAP), and their application to practical issues like borders, access to unowned resources, and the theoretical "donut homesteading" scenario.Introduction and Background Matthew Sands introduces his Nations of Sanity project, which is grounded in defining law and crime through individual self-ownership as a basis for peaceful agreements. The discussion originates from a debate about immigration and borders, evolving into a broader exploration of property rights, specifically addressing the "donut homesteading" scenario—where a property owner surrounds an unowned or owned piece of land, potentially restricting access to it—and the related concepts of forestalling and hostile encirclement. Immigration and Libertarian Principles Kinsella outlines the libertarian immigration debate, noting the traditional "open borders" stance among some libertarians, who argue that the state, being illegitimate, has no right to restrict movement. However, he highlights a shift in the 1990s and 2000s, led by figures like Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard, who questioned open borders due to practical and cultural concerns, such as welfare state externalities and forced integration. Kinsella clarifies he is not anti-immigration but argues that denying outsiders access to public roads—legally controlled by the government but rightfully owned by taxpayers—does not inherently violate their rights. Sands counters that while property owners can exclude others from their land, actively preventing access to unowned resources (e.g., wilderness areas like the Grand Canyon) through measures like border walls constitutes a violation of libertarian principles. Donut Homesteading, Forestalling, and Hostile Encirclement The "donut homesteading" scenario, inspired by Walter Block’s “Blockean Proviso” and Frank Van Dun’s work, becomes a central point of contention. Sands argues that enclosing someone’s property or unowned land, thereby imprisoning them or denying access, violates the NAP. He distinguishes between not facilitating access (e.g., denying road use) and actively blocking it (e.g., building a wall or completing a donut-shaped property to encircle another). Kinsella references Frank Van Dun’s 2009 article, “Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement,” which critiques the idea that property rights allow one to prevent others from accessing unowned resources through encirclement. Van Dun argues that such actions could be seen as initiating force by restricting others’ freedom to act, aligning with Sands’ perspective on the NAP violation. Walter Block’s “Blockean Proviso” (discussed in Kinsella’s 2007 post and 2024 Libertarian Answer Man article) posits that libertarianism abhors unowned property, suggesting that preventing access to unowned resources (forestalling) via a donut-shaped homestead could be problematic. However, Kinsella challenges this, arguing that forestalling does not inherently violate rights, as property owners are entitled to control their land without a positive obligation to facilitate others’ access. Kinsella dismisses the donut scenario as an unrealistic hypothetical, akin to left-leaning concerns about monopolies. He cites civil law solutions, such as granting easements to enclosed estates, as practical resolutions that align with libertarian goals of minimizing conflict. These solutions, detailed in his 2024 post on Block’s oeuvre, reflect historical legal practices where enclosed property owners gain a right of way if encirclement occurs through no fault of their own. Sands emphasizes that the violation occurs when the final property owner closes the “C-shaped” gap, effectively imprisoning someone or blocking access to unowned land. He argues this act of hostile encirclement—actively preventing access rather than passively refusing to facilitate it—crosses a libertarian line. Kinsella acknowledges the reasonableness of rights of way in private law contexts but cautions against directly applying these to national borders, given the differing contexts of citizenship and state-controlled property. Practical and Theoretical Implications Both agree that the ultimate libertarian solution is a stateless society where private property reigns, eliminating immigration as a political issue. Sands stresses that libertarian solutions, like denying immigrants access to welfare and public services, are preferable to anti-libertarian measures like border walls. Kinsella suggests a compromise inspired by Hoppe: allowing immigration with sponsorship to mitigate welfare state issues, which Sands acknowledges as an improvement but not fully libertarian. The discussion on forestalling and hostile encirclement ties back to immigration, with Sands arguing that building a national border wall is analogous to closing the donut, actively preventing access to unowned resources and violating libertarian principles. Kinsella maintains that denying access to state-controlled roads does not violate outsiders’ rights, as they lack ownership claims, but he concedes that violently blocking access to unowned land (e.g., via military force) would be problematic. Conclusion The conversation concludes with mutual appreciation for the exchange, recognizing the complexity of applying libertarian principles to real-world problems. They agree that while edge cases like donut homesteading, forestalling, and hostile encirclement highlight theoretical principles, the focus should be on moving toward a freer, stateless society. Sands plugs his Nations of Sanity project, and both express interest in future discussions to further explore these ideas. Resources Mentioned Nations of Sanity project (Matthew Sands) Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s work on immigration Walter Block’s “Blockean Proviso” (Kinsella’s 2007 post: https://stephankinsella.com/2007/09/the-blockean-proviso/) Frank Van Dun’s “Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement” (Kinsella’s 2009 post: https://stephankinsella.com/2009/08/van-dun-on-freedom-versus-property-and-hostile-encirclement/) Kinsella’s “Libertarian Answer Man: Homesteading, Donuts, Prostitution” (2024: https://stephankinsella.com/2024/03/libertarian-answer-man-homesteading-donuts-prostitution/) Kinsella’s “A Tour Through Walter Block’s Oeuvre” (2024: https://stephankinsella.com/2024/05/a-tour-through-walter-blocks-oeuvre/) These updated show notes integrate the additional details from the provided posts and transcript, particularly emphasizing the discussion on forestalling and hostile encirclement, while maintaining the structure and key points of the original notes. The added content clarifies the theoretical underpinnings from Van Dun and Block, and elaborates on the debate over whether encirclement violates the NAP, connecting it to both the donut scenario and immigration policy. GROK CLEANED UP TRANSCRIPT FROM YOUTUBE: Intro Stephan Kinsella (0:04): Okay, I'm starting this recording now. This is another episode, I think, of the podcast, and we have a recurring or return guest, Matthew Sands. We've been talking offline about some issues, and we decided to just hash them out here. I think we're talking about homesteading and blocking homesteading, and those kinds of issues. Is that right? Matt Sands (0:36): Yeah, primarily. Why don't you go ahead and introduce yourself and what you think this talk should be about? Matt Sands (0:43): Okay, my name is Matthew Sands. I have a project called the Nations of Sanity Project, which is built on the assertion that crime, and therefore also law, can and should be defined by the concept of individual self-ownership and established as the terms of a peace agreement. That's kind of what my little project is about in a nutshell.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 425. From Adam Haman's show Haman Nature, Ep. 4. Released Feb. 15, 2024. From Adam's shownotes: Adam gets all intellectual and stuff with Stephan Kinsella. Part two of this interview explains why the concept of "intellectual" property is illegitimate and impedes humanity's progress. [Previous episode: KOL423 | Haman Nature Ep. 1: Getting Argumentative.] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vpTQHLw_kc Update: See the response/commentary video: https://youtu.be/k23t_8cUSmA?si=ImRcLsE7YB-dKWBj 00:00 – Intro 01:15 – Introducing two amazing books: Stephan's Against Intellectual Property and Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine. Then Stephan touches on many aspects of the philosophical and consequential aspects of intellectual property laws. The dude goes all over the place! There's no stopping him! He knows so much! 26:38 -- Outro

Stephan Kinsella, lawyer and libertarian legal theorist and author of Legal Foundations of a Free Society, discusses self-ownership and how bodily control grounds property. He examines property as a right to exclude, critiques intellectual property, explains homesteading and contracts as title transfers, and explores forfeiture, inalienability nuances, and the effects of state monopoly on ownership.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 423. My appearance as the first guess on Adam Haman's new podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack). As I noted in the initial discussion, this is the fourth or fifth podcast for which I was the first guest, the others being KOL374 | The Intellectual Contributions of Hans-Hermann Hoppe: The Great Fiction Podcast Ep. 1, KOL078 | Lions of Liberty Podcast Inaugural Episode: Intellectual Property, KOL244 | “YOUR WELCOME” with Michael Malice Ep. 001: Intellectual Property, Prostate Cancer, and KOL347 | This Time I’m Curious Ep. 1: The Libertarian Movement, AI Rights, UFOs, Music, Movies, Alcohol. Shownotes: Adam and Stephen discuss argumentation ethics which of course means they also talk about museums. Part 1 of a 2 episode interview. https://youtu.be/00MQjVoHgYI?si=yGoO7GfLW1EFx2X6 Time marks: 00:00 – Intro 2:50 – Remembering PorcFest 2023 and fun with the creature from Bretton Woods. 5:52 – Introducing Stephan's new book: Legal Foundations of a Free Society. 7:00 – Libertarianism in America, then and now. 9:35 – With the change in the way we consume information, is intellectualism dead? 13:58 – The origins of this book: activism vs. preaching to the remnant. The value of engaging these ideas deeply to maximize credibility and effectiveness. 18:40 – From Marx to Rothbard: People who care about ideas are reachable and teachable. 20:17 – Exploring argumentation ethics. To understand liberty, we must understand property. 29:13 – Oh crap! Does Elon Musk own us? 29:31 – Back to argumentation ethics. Is v. ought. Natural order arguments. 35:31 -- A very brief discussion of Michael Huemer and intuitionism. 37:23 -- Five blind men describing an elephant - all roads lead to liberty. 40:30 -- Outro Part 2: KOL425 | Haman Nature: Stephan Kinsella dismantles “intellectual” property Reaction video (Haman Nature Ep. 6): https://youtu.be/k23t_8cUSmA?si=alkIp3G0jolbLp4f Pix of Adam, me and others at Bretton Woods at PorcFest 2023...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 422. A new podcast by Dumo Denga, ManPatria, has just released an audio narration of my article "What Libertarianism Is" for its first episode, entitled "What is Libertarianism." This narration appears to be based on the original article, not the updated version that appears as chap. 2 of Legal Foundations of a Free Society. There is also a previous narration of this article by Graham Wright (KOL005).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 421. This is my appearance on Episode 297 of The Local Maximum with host Max Sklar. Recorded Sep. 13, 2023, published Sep. 27, 2023. From their shownotes: Max talks to Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian intellectual property lawyer who ardently challenges the very foundations of IP. Kinsella delves deep into the core arguments underpinning intellectual property and the inherent fallacies. They also discuss the impact of generative AI on the copyright landscape. Transcript below. Transcript Max Sklar: You're listening to the Local Maximum episode 297. Narration: Time to expand your perspective. Welcome to the Local Maximum. Now here's your host, Max Sklar. Max: Welcome everyone, welcome, you have reached another Local Maximum. We are going to get a really interesting perspective on intellectual property today from Stephan Kinsella. He is an intellectual property lawyer who is actually against the whole concept of intellectual property that includes patents, copyright, the whole thing. Now, for those of us on the outside, there's still a lot that we need to learn about IP, like, what are all these different concepts? Why are they considered necessary by the mainstream? So we go back to basics a little bit, go over what patent and copyright is and why you still need to use it and think about it even if you don't agree with it. And then we're going to take a turn into the issues of the day with generative AI models and how copyright law may end up getting applied to these processes, by the authorities, by the powers that be and the harm that this could possibly do. All right. My next guest is a libertarian writer and registered patent attorney in Houston. He has spoken, lectured and published widely on various areas of libertarian legal theory and on legal topics, such as intellectual property law and international law. Stephan Kinsella, you've reached the Local Maximum, welcome to the show. Stephan Kinsella: Thank you, glad to be here. Max: Yeah, really glad to have you and your work on intellectual property and copyright. First of all, that's a topic that, you know, not everyone can make it interesting for me, whenever I listen to your stuff on it, I always I always find it's more interesting. So I appreciate that. And I agree with you on a lot of things. So that's it. I just appreciate the way you present it. You've been opposed to IP for quite a while. When did you come to this kind of full? Well, what is your full position? I think it's like, you know, no patent, no copyright? Is this your full position? And when did you come to this position? Was it before after going into IP law? Stephan: About the same time I was a, I was a libertarian and college and in law school, but I was always unsatisfied with the arguments for IP that I had heard by Ayn Rand and others, I assumed it was a legitimate type of property right because it was in the Constitution, and it's part of so-called capitalism, and everyone was in favor of it. But their arguments didn't make sense to me, because, you know, most of the arguments were either well, they're either utilitarian or incentive based, or they're kind of a deontological, or principle based, like have a natural rights argument. And the natural rights argument just makes no sense because the patent and copyright expire after a certain number of years, which, which is not how other property rights work. So it seems to me like if you're trying to do a natural rights argument, which Ayn Rand did, and then you say, but that copyright should expire in 100 years, and patent should expire in 17 years. It's weird that you just have this arbitrary number, which, of course, the government would have to make up and they have no basis for it. And if you do a utilitarian argument, then I just don't think that you never hear any evidence, you just hear anecdotes and the same old arguments, so I was dissatisfied with it. And when I started practicing law in 1992, I was doing oil and gas law at first in Houston. But then I decided to switch to patent law. So I could move around the country because it's a national field. So I started learning patent law, studying, taking the Patent Bar Exam. At the same time, I redouble my efforts to try to figure out from a libertarian point of view, like, I thought I was going to be the one to come up with the right argument for IP to explain it. So I kept searching and searching and trying and trying and one argument after the other and I kept failing. And finally I realized, well, the reason I'm failing is because this is not justifiable. And as my understanding of property rights got clearer — which I had to sort out to figure this out — I realized that patents are totally illegitimate. Probably around ‘93 or ‘94 right? Right around the time I passed the Patent Bar. So at the moment, I became a patent lawyer, I also realized that all intellectual property rights, I would say every intellectual property rights, illegitimate patent, copyright, trademark trade secret law, all of it. And not just those but any any type of right in an intangible or an immaterial object is an invalid right because it always ends up stealing property rights from existing owners of tangible objects. So I came to that conclusion. I was cautious about admitting that in public at first because I thought it might hurt me in my career to be a patent lawyer who thinks the whole patent system should be abolished. But over time I gradually let my opinions out there and I realized no one cares. No one in the business world cares what my private opinions are. In fact, it helped me get clients because they figured I must know what I'm talking about, if I'm so passionate about this topic to write on it, so it never hurt me in my career that I noticed. Max: So I, yeah, I found that interesting, you get your patent, you become a patent attorney, you come to the conclusion that all of these laws shouldn't be there. And yet you stay in that field. You know I feel like your experience in this role must have been so different from every other patent lawyer out there. Stephan: Most of them either don't care to think about these issues, or they have self serving arguments, you know? For me, now, if you understand — I actually don't think you need to know IP law on the detail level, like a professional like me does to understand the case against it. So I don't think that I came to my anti-IP conclusions, because I knew the law. I think that because I was going into the law, it made me turn my attention as a libertarian to it. And that's what made me figure it out. Now, knowing the law does help a little bit, because it helps me communicate precisely. A lot of people that talk about IP, either pro or con mangle the terms, they confuse copyright and trademark and patents because they don't get it. But knowing the field really well, like I do, helps me understand that there are ways to engage in the practice of that law that are not incompatible with opposing it on moral grounds, because, so I look at my job, I help people acquire patents. So to me that's analogous to selling guns to someone, or weapons or bullets maybe. And guns and ammunition has a good, you know, has a justifiable purpose, and it has a bad purpose, you can use it aggressively or you can use it defensively. So merely selling someone a bullet, or a gun, per se doesn't mean that you endorse using it aggressively. And in fact, most people acquire patents for defensive purposes. Like given that the system exists. If you don't have patents, you're vulnerable to attack and a patent infringement attack by someone else. So it's a waste, it's a huge waste of society. But given that the system exists, obtaining patents is a little bit like buying insurance. And I have never helped in litigation with the aggressive side, I've only helped with the defense side, which I think is perfectly legitimate. Or in a countersuit like I would have no problem using one of my clients patents to, to countersue someone if they sue me first, you know, it's like once you open that door. So that's how I started to justify it. I steered clear of being part of the aggression. And I only provided the patents to people. Now that said, I still didn't enjoy it, because I knew that what I was doing was, in a sense, a waste on society. But given that it's there as sort of like a, the way I analogize is like an oncologist, a doctor who tries to he gets paid a good salary to help people fight cancer. But if he's a decent human being, he would like there to be a world where cancer was cured and abolished, even though that would put him out of a job maybe right? Or put it this way, defense attorney, a libertarian defense attorney who gets paid to defend people from drug charges. He would prefer there to be a world where drugs are not illegal, which means he would be put out of business, but it's not hypocritical or unethical of him to defend people who are attacked by the state for drug charges given that the system exists. So I think that's the best way to look at the best positive spin to put on being a patent practitioner like I’ve been. Max: Yeah, that I almost had a flashback for I you know, I worked at Foursquare for many years. And it wasn't, you know, I was an engineer. I wasn't on the legal side or anything. But I remember we were always having these like, kind of patent trolls come after us. And it was like, Well, what did they say we copy? He's like, Oh, he claims he has a patent on all online commerce that takes place based on latitude longitude. It was like that, that sounds — I didn't get into the details. But I'm like that, that sounds a little crazy. Stephan: That's the thing about patent trolls is, everyone says patent. People say we need to reform the patent system because it's broken. And they'll say something like, there's too many bad patents issued.

Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian attorney and author of Against Intellectual Property, recounts how he came to reject all forms of IP. He traces his legal and intellectual journey, critiques common defenses of IP, and explains why knowledge cannot be treated as scarce property. The talk highlights foundations of property theory and the practical implications of abolishing IP.