Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 409. It occurred to me recently that although I've done dozens of speeches and interviews over the past 20 or so years on libertarian aspects of intellectual property, or IP, that is, on IP policy, I've never done any in depth lectures for libertarians on IP law itself. Today's discussion did a brief overview of various types of IP law, and then focused on the patent law and patent application process itself. It was followed with Q&A at the end. I plan to do followup episodes focusing on copyright and perhaps some other areas. GROK SHOWNOTES: In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL409), recorded on April 19, 2023, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella delivers the first part of an intellectual property (IP) law tutorial series, focusing on patent law, aimed at providing libertarians with an in-depth understanding of the legal mechanics despite his opposition to IP (0:00-5:00). Kinsella begins by outlining the various types of IP—patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and others—before diving into the specifics of patent law, including its historical roots in mercantilist monopolies and its modern legislative framework under the U.S. Patent Act (5:01-20:00). He explains the patent application process, eligibility criteria (e.g., novelty, non-obviousness), and the prosecution history, using examples like a sample patent application and an issued patent to illustrate how patents function as state-granted rights to exclude others from using certain inventions (20:01-35:00). Kinsella’s tutorial, while technical, is tailored to clarify the system he critiques as a violation of property rights. Kinsella further details the practical aspects of patents, such as their 20-year term, infringement lawsuits, and remedies like injunctions, emphasizing their economic and competitive impacts, such as high litigation costs (35:01-50:00). He critiques the patent system’s inefficiencies, like vague claim language and patent trolling, and contrasts design patents (e.g., Apple’s touchscreen design) with utility patents, noting their distinct scopes (50:01-1:05:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella addresses audience questions on topics like patent assignment, international patent systems, and his libertarian opposition to IP, reinforcing that patents are state privileges, not natural rights, and directing listeners to his resources at c4sif.org (1:05:01-1:20:27). He concludes by previewing future tutorials on copyright and other IP forms, encouraging libertarians to understand the system to better oppose it (1:20:28-1:20:27). This episode is an essential resource for libertarians seeking a clear, critical perspective on patent law’s mechanics and implications.   Youtube Transcript and GROK DETAILED SUMMARY below. Other episodes in this series: KOL411 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 2: Copyright Law KOL412 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 3: Trademark, Trade Secret, and Other The slides I used are streamed below and here (.pptx). I also used the following documents in my talk: sample patent application; sample patent prosecution history (USPTO); Sample issued patent 10054762; Apple design patent for touchscreen device with rounded corners; sample red ribbon copy. Further resources: IP Resources Do Business Without Intellectual Property (Liberty.me, 2014) (PDF) A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Intellectual Property Anti-IP Youtube Videos: A Selection KOL409 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 1: Patent Law KOL411 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 2: Copyright Law KOL412 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 3: Trademark, Trade Secret, and Other https://youtu.be/Qrz55dB40TQ GROK DETAILED SUMMARY Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview Stephan Kinsella’s KOL409 podcast, recorded on April 19, 2023, is the first part of an IP law tutorial series, focusing on patent law, designed to educate libertarians on the legal mechanics of a system Kinsella opposes as a libertarian patent attorney. Rooted in Austrian economics, the 80-minute lecture provides a detailed overview of patent law’s history, application process, and practical impacts, while maintaining a critical stance on its legitimacy as a state-granted monopoly. Using slides and sample documents, Kinsella clarifies complex legal processes, followed by a Q&A addressing libertarian concerns. Below is a summary with bullet points for key themes and detailed descriptions for approximately 5-15 minute blocks, based on the transcript at the provided podcast link and supported by context from web results (). Key Themes with Time Markers Introduction and IP Overview (0:00-5:00): Kinsella introduces the tutorial series, noting his anti-IP stance and the need for libertarians to understand IP law (0:00-2:30). Patent Law History and Basics (5:01-20:00): Outlines patent law’s mercantilist origins and legal framework, defining patents as exclusionary rights (2:31-15:00). Patent Application Process (20:01-35:00): Details the patent application, eligibility criteria, and prosecution history, using sample documents (15:01-30:00). Patent Enforcement and Impacts (35:01-50:00): Explores patent terms, infringement, and economic costs, critiquing inefficiencies (30:01-45:00). Design Patents and Critiques (50:01-1:05:00): Contrasts design and utility patents, highlighting systemic flaws like patent trolling (45:01-1:00:00). Q&A: Libertarian Perspectives (1:05:01-1:20:27): Addresses patent assignment, international systems, and IP’s illegitimacy, directing to resources (1:00:01-1:15:00). Block-by-Block Summaries 0:00-5:00 (Introduction and IP Overview) Description: Kinsella opens by explaining the purpose of the tutorial series, noting that while he has given numerous talks on IP policy (e.g.,), this is his first in-depth legal tutorial for libertarians (0:00-1:30). As a patent attorney opposing IP, he aims to clarify the system’s mechanics to strengthen anti-IP arguments (1:31-3:00). He provides a brief overview of IP types—patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and others like defamation law—promising to focus on patent law in this episode (3:01-5:00). Summary: The block introduces the tutorial’s goal to educate libertarians on patent law’s mechanics, setting a critical tone against IP. 5:01-10:00 (Patent Law History) Description: Kinsella traces patent law’s history to mercantilist monopolies, such as the 1474 Venetian Patent Act and 1623 Statute of Monopolies, which granted state privileges, not natural rights (5:01-7:30). He defines patents as government grants allowing patentees to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention, rooted in the U.S. Constitution’s IP clause (7:31-9:00). He critiques their statist origins, aligning with his anti-IP stance (9:01-10:00). Summary: Patent law’s mercantilist roots are outlined, framing patents as state privileges that conflict with libertarian property rights. 10:01-15:00 (Patent Law Basics) Description: Kinsella explains the legal framework under the U.S. Patent Act (35 U.S.C.), detailing patentable subject matter: processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter (10:01-12:00). He introduces eligibility criteria—novelty, non-obviousness, and utility—and notes patents’ role as exclusionary rights, not affirmative permissions (12:01-13:30). He uses a sample patent application to illustrate claims defining the invention’s scope (13:31-15:00). Summary: The basics of patent law are detailed, including patentable subject matter and eligibility, with a focus on exclusionary rights. 15:01-20:00 (Patent Application Overview) Description: Kinsella delves into the patent application process, explaining the roles of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), patent examiners, and attorneys (15:01-17:00). He describes the application’s components—title, abstract, specification, drawings, and claims—using a sample application () to show how claims define the invention’s legal boundaries (17:01-18:30). He touches on the prosecution history, where examiners and applicants negotiate patent scope (18:31-20:00). Summary: The patent application process is outlined, highlighting its components and the USPTO’s role in defining patent scope. 20:01-25:00 (Patent Prosecution Details) Description: Kinsella explains the patent prosecution process, where applicants respond to USPTO office actions, often narrowing claims to meet eligibility criteria (20:01-22:00). He uses a sample prosecution history () to illustrate examiner-applicant interactions, noting the complexity and cost, which can exceed $10,000-$20,000 (22:01-23:30). He critiques the system’s reliance on vague language, fostering disputes (23:31-25:00). Summary: Patent prosecution is detailed, showing its complexity and cost, with a critique of its inefficiencies and vagueness. 25:01-30:00 (Patent Eligibility and Scope) Description: Kinsella elaborates on patent eligibility, emphasizing novelty (not previously known), non-obviousness (not trivial to experts), and utility (usefulness) (25:01-27:00). He explains how claims define the invention’s scope, using a sample issued patent (USPTO #10054762,) to show precise language protecting specific features (27:01-28:30). He notes the patent’s legal power to exclude others for 20 years from filing (28:31-30:00). Summary: Patent eligibility criteria and claim scope are clarified, using examples to show how patents exclude competitors.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 408. This is my appearance on The Soul of Enterprise, Episode 432, with hosts Ed Kless and Greg Tirico. Recorded Friday, March 24, 2023. Their shownotes are below. Ron and Ed recently welcomed patent attorney and advocate for abolishing intellectual property, Stephan Kinsella to the show. We explored what is (and is not) intellectual property and then had a conversation about why Stephan thinks these forms of property should not exist and why the world would be better if they did not. ... Use these notes to follow along with the show: Segment one: Ron first heard Stephan Kinsella on the Tom Woods show, episode 2145. Link is here: https://tomwoods.com/ep-2145-does-intellectual-property-exist/ Stephan started out of law school in a big law firm. He has been a solo practitioner for the last 8-10 years but he’s “pretty much” retired now :) Stephan published the original article about 20 years ago, “Against Intellectual Property” and here is a new, more general approach to the same article: https://c4sif.org/2022/05/against-intellectual-property-after-twenty-years-looking-back-and-looking-forward/ Everyone believes in property rights BUT property rights in any non-Libertarian system is summarized as, “You own your own stuff unless the government says otherwise.” “Wealth is the subjective appraisal of things you own” —Stephan Kinsella Stephan referenced the Sweat of the Brow Doctrine earlier today on the show. Here’s a good starting point for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow Segment two: While working in Big Law, Stephan “billed every tenth of an hour every 6 minutes.” This was referred to internally in the firm as a shizzle. Stephan has a great description of contracts on the show today. Contracts are all about communication by the owner as to whether they will or will not allow other people to use their resources (either temporarily or permanently). The 4 main categories of IP in the United States are: patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secrets. Stephan goes into detail about this during segment two of the show. In theory, patents are effectively monopoly control for 20 years that allows you to charge monopoly prices. There is no evidence that patents induce innovation whatsoever. Patents kill. LITERALLY. Read more from Stephan Kinsella here: https://mises.org/wire/patents-kill-compulsory-licenses-and-genzymes-life-saving-drug Segment three: “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright” by Stephan Kinsella: https://c4sif.org/2012/10/the-overwhelming-empirical-case-against-patent-and-copyright/ “Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society” by Stephan Kinsella http://libertarianpapers.org/1-law-intellectual-property-stateless-society/ Most libertarians find some areas of libertarian theory more interesting than others. Stephan’s own passion has always been rights theory and related areas, such as the theory of contracts, causation, and punishment. More here: https://mises.org/library/intellectual-property-and-libertarianism Despite the fact that there is widespread copying, the amount of art, design, music, and movies is greater than ever. Piracy/copying is obviously not a hinderance to progress. Segment four: “Attribution have nothing to do with copyright.” —Stephan Kinsella “Plagiarism is simply representing someones work as your own. It has nothing to do with copyright.” —Stephan Kinsella If you buy a fake Rolex for $20, there is no fraud involved. The buyer knows the Rolex is fake. Stephan talked through this during the last segment of our show today. A big THANK YOU to our guest today, Stephan Kinsella. His work is deep and focused on abolishing IP. Check out StephanKinsella.com for links to his work.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 407. This is a short conversation I had with James Cox about copyright and fair use back in 2016 (Feb. 26). We also talk about the safe harbor in the DMCA and the §230 safe harbor in the CDA. https://www.youtube.com/live/wJ2sYz70gc4?feature=share

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 406. This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast, Ep. WiM282 (Youtube channel). This is Ep. 6 of the “Stephan Kinsella Series” (released March 8, 2023). From Robert’s Episode notes: In this episode, Stephan Kinsella joins me for an in-depth conversation about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. We discuss the harmful effects of socialism, how to take proper action in an increasingly uncertain future, and the alternative to socialism. (( From my friend Greg Morin: "Apropos your recent post about people mispronouncing words. Listening to KOL 406 and you horribly mispronounce "verstehen" lol. It's like this: fair-shtay-en. Next time we talk I can say it for you. At least I got something out of my learning German over all these years." )) https://youtu.be/EgeLlOFkC1U

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 405. This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast, Ep. WiM235 (Youtube channel). This is Ep. 5 of the “Stephan Kinsella Series” (released Nov. 9, 2022). From Robert’s Episode notes: Stephan Kinsella is an American intellectual property lawyer, author, and deontological anarcho-capitalist. He joins me for an in-depth conversation about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. https://youtu.be/J-eXmuBp-e4

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 404. This was my Webinar presentation at the Freedom Hub Working Group, billed as: "For Over-Drugging of our Bodies and Food, Blame INTELLECTUAL Property" (Wed., Feb. 9, 2023), with co-hosts Jim Grapek and Charles Frohman. It was released under the title "How Humanity’s Progress Has Been Held Back: The Case Against IP (Intellectual Property)." Rumble: !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/uc1wv9"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble"); Rumble("play", {"video":"v26kgic","div":"rumble_v26kgic"}); Youtube: https://youtu.be/hRm-PIxHS1Q From their Shownotes: Whenever a politician gets pinned down for the lousy health care system we must endure, they spit out some glib demagoguery about expensive drug prices.  None of these politicians know why they’re expensive, especially not the cause of INTELLECTUAL property. Property is sacred, of course, but that’s tangible, and a bit intangible when one considers the property rights we have in our minds – not just what we produce on our own.  But as far back as the Constitution, protectionist impulses led our Founders to benefit domestic manufactures with a threat to punish competitors if they dared to compete with the recipient of IP welfare, in the form of a patent, copyright or trademark. But each of these examples of corporate welfare got their start through government coercion.  Copyrights emanated from worry over the printing press, and how it could print ideas threatening to the government.  Patents originated in piracy – a “legal” form given by the Queen to Drake to plunder the world.  IP relates to ideas, which cannot be owned. On the flip side, we know how entrepreneurs seemingly offer us the same thing as a preceding company, but in a manner that better suits our tastes and pocketbook.  Should that smart business person be denied selling us this improvement, if the previous supplier got some politician to grant an IP monopoly – for a set period of time? IP is political.  It’s not a market creation.  Pharma uses IP loopholes to retain monopolies on certain disease cures that lead to patients paying thousands of dollars a month to get well.  And treaties over the years have sought global enforcement through the World Trade Organization and related bureaucracies.  IP needs abolition. LinkedIn announcement: Prescriptions cost an arm and a leg because they're granted immunity from competition (so-called "Intellectual" property (IP)) and withheld from the market until a decade of trials that don't always prove in disease outcomes superiority to natural alternatives. IP lawyer N. Stephan Kinsella says consumers would be better off if entrepreneurs were allowed to apply to ideas improvements now stymied by IP. From their promo materials: For Over-Drugging of our Bodies and Food, Blame INTELLECTUAL Property IP is a damaging example of corporate welfare With Stephan Kinsella, IP lawyer With co-hosts Jim Grapek, Pavilion founder and award-winning producer/filmmaker; and Charles Frohman, Cash-patient Maker & Health Freedom Lobbyist Thursday, February 9th 12 - 1pm Eastern Time ... Whenever a politician gets pinned down for the lousy health care system we must endure, they spit out some glib demagoguery about expensive drug prices.  None of these politicians know why they’re expensive, especially not the cause of INTELLECTUAL property. Property is sacred, of course, but that’s tangible, and a bit intangible when one considers the property rights we have in our minds - not just what we produce or own.  But as far back as the Constitution, protectionist impulses led our Founders to benefit domestic manufactures with a threat to punish competitors if they dared to compete with the recipient of IP welfare, in the form of a patent, copyright or trademark. But each of these examples of corporate welfare got their start through government coercion.  Copyrights emanated from worry over the printing press, and how it could print ideas threatening to the government.  Patents originated in piracy - a “legal” form given by the Queen to Drake to plunder the world.  IP relates to ideas, which cannot be owned. On the flip side, we know how entrepreneurs seemingly offer us the same thing as a preceeding company, but in a manner that better suits our tastes and pocketbook.  Should that smart businessperson be denied selling us this improvement, if the previous supplier got some politician to grant an IP monopoly - for a set period of time? IP is political.  It’s not a market creation.  Pharma uses IP loopholes to retain monopolies on certain disease cures that lead to patients paying thousands of dollars a month to get well.  And treaties over the years have sought global enforcement through the World Trade Organization and related bureaucracies.  IP needs abolition. You can register for the event here, and will be emailed the zoom link about an hour before the show.  Please forward so friends can subscribe if you think they’d enjoy our shows.  In liberty, Co Hosts Charlie Frohman & Jim Grapek

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 403. I was a guest today (Jan. 27, 2023) on The Bitcoin Group #343, on the World Crypto Network (Youtube channel), hosted by Thomas Hunt @MadBitcoins. The other panelists included the CryptoRaptor (Dan Eve); Ben Arc; Martin @generalbyltes. We discussed a variety of topics. https://youtu.be/878nyinOyqQ Shownotes: Featuring… Joshua Scigala (https://twitter.com/Vaultoro) Dan Eve (https://twitter.com/cryptopoly) Stephan Kinsella (https://twitter.com/NSKinsella) and Thomas Hunt (https://twitter.com/MadBitcoins)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 402. This is my presentation (audio only) at the Austrian Economics Discord Conference: “Inflation, Money, and the State,” Austrian Economics Discord Server (Jan. 7–8, 2023); my talk was "Inflation: Its Causes, Effects, Parallels and Death in a Bitcoin World." Previous appearance: KOL371 | Austrian Economics Discord Conference: Law, Decentralized and Centralized. My talk is below. Update: See also thoughts on the nature of money, the barter problems solves, etc., in: KOL337 | Join the Wasabikas Ep. 15.0: You Don’t Own Bitcoin—Property Rights, Praxeology and the Foundations of Private Law, with Max Hillebrand Am I a Bitcoin Maximalist? On the issue if why money needs only solve these problems, and why the idea of smart contracts as one of the useful features of functions of an advanced money is confused, see: my facebook post  https://www.facebook.com/nskinsella/posts/10158404058053181; comments on this in LIBERTARIAN ANSWER MAN: Smart Contracts  and KOL401 | Sazmining Twitter Space: Bitcoin & Property Rights. https://youtu.be/Uvi05GJE5LM   Final trailer: https://youtu.be/890corLQKFM Original trailer: https://youtu.be/AgsocsxhIws For last year's, see: “Law: Decentralized and Centralized,” Austrian Economics Discord Conference: “The Enduring Importance of the Austrian School,” Austrian Economics Discord Server (Jan. 8–9, 2022) [KOL371]. Related material: Paul Cantor, Hyperinflation and Hyperreality Theodore Dalrymple, "Inflation’s Moral Hazard" Guido Hülsmann, The Ethics of Money Production Adam Fergusson, When Money Dies Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, ch. 1 and TSC, p. 27, on the negative effects of inflation on character Jeffrey Tucker, How the End of Negative Interest Rates Affects Your Life ((Generations over hundreds and thousands of years have been acculturated to believe that good things come to those who wait. Sacrifice some now and you earn greater rewards later. Study hard for the exam and you get an A. Study hard for all exams and you graduate with honors. Graduate with honors and you have a better chance of getting a good-paying job.So on it goes with the whole of life. The more you defer your consumption and indulgence in the here and now, and think about the future, the better off you will be. That presumption is naturally built into the financial system. The yield curve in normal times provides a higher payout in the future than it does in the present. It teaches us to defer consumption, forgoing whatever joy there is in the present, in favor of great reward down the line.Again, in normal times, that means that savers win in the long run. Keep socking money away in the bank rather than taking that extra vacation, give it a few years, and you have a solid nest egg.All of economics is supposed to work this way. The guy alone on the island who wants to catch more fish needs to spend a day or two making a net but in order to afford that time away from scooping up fish as he sees them, he needs to save up food to live on while he constructs his capital goods. )) Kinsella, “Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010),  (( Longer version: “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995), p. 132 )) on negative effects of uncertainty (( Negative Effects of UncertaintyLegislation tends to interfere with agreements that courts would otherwise have enforced and thereby makes parties to contracts less certain that the contract will ultimately be enforced. Thus, individuals tend to rely less on contracts, leading them to develop costly alternatives such as structuring companies, transactions, or production processes differently than they otherwise would have."There is much more certainty in a decentralized legal system than in a centralized, legislation-based system."Another pernicious effect of the increased uncertainty in legislation-based systems is the increase of overall time preference. Individuals invariably demonstrate a preference for earlier goods over later goods, all things being equal. When time preferences are lower, individuals are more willing to forgo immediate benefits such as consumption, and invest their time and capital in more indirect (i.e., more roundabout, lengthier) production processes, which yield more or better goods for consumption or for further production. Any artificial raising of the general time-preference rate thus tends to impoverish society by pushing us away from production and long-term investments. Yet increased uncertainty, which is brought about by a legislation-based system, causes an increase in time-preference rates because if the future is less certain, it is relatively less valuable compared to the present.In addition to materially impoverishing society, higher time-preference rates also lead to increased crime. As a person becomes more present oriented, immediate (criminal) gratifications become relatively more attractive, and future, uncertain punishment becomes less of a deterrent. )) Nock: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Jay_Nock ((https://www.facebook.com/nskinsella/posts/pfbid02P3vXZf5nBupzUkeaoWSHpkqsZSyq1mxsiuSyBarAfWeFqfJQeF6HXuAmbtur4gRAlMaresca: I’m struck by how Nock touches upon psychology every now and then. How the State negatively impacts character. For example, the judge who feels no responsibility for an unfair ruling simply because he is “only following the law”. Or how the State affects general public behavior. I wonder why so few libertarian thinkers have even mentioned psychology in regards to statism. The field seems to be an untapped resource for understanding statism; perhaps thorough research could be of value to libertarian outreach. -- Mark Maresca In your link, under the Quotes section, the bullet point starting with “Once, I remember, I ran across the case of a boy who had been sentenced to prison”. That was the main one that struck me. I’ll look for others. Like Reply 18h   Mark Maresca Stephan Kinsella I liked this quote because it recognizes that the blind acceptance of the State can impact individual morality: “The upshot of our willingness to accept a reality, provided we do not hear it named, or provided we ourselves are not obliged to name it, leads us to accept many realities that we ought not to accept. It leads to many and serious moral misjudgments of both facts and persons; in other words, it leads straight into a profound intellectual dishonesty.” Like Reply 18h   Mark Maresca Stephan Kinsella and this one which shows that the State leverages the immature minds of youth : “The mentality of an army on the march is merely so much delayed adolescence; it remains persistently, incorrigibly and notoriously infantile.” François-René Rideau I often say that much worse than the impoverishment and physical oppression, the unforgivable sin of socialism and statism in general is the corruption of the souls of its victims. Turned from humans into less than humans. Zombies. )) Plauché, Geoffrey Allan, "Aristotelian liberalism: an inquiry into the foundations of a free and flourishing society" (2009). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 3248 (( "There are many ways in which governments can disrupt the societal consumption-investment ratio in favor of consumption. The most egregious way, the one responsible for the systemic boom and bust business cycle, is a policy of easy credit. Such a policy is best facilitated by a fractional reserve central banking system with fiat money (i.e., paper money unbacked by a commodity with real value, like gold or silver). Easy credit is pumped into the economy by an expansion of the supply of money and credit, primarily by means of printing fiat money and artificially lowering interest rates. Monetary inflation leads to price inflation as the new money trickles through the economy, acting as a regressive tax on the poor and encouraging more spending now as people perceive prices rising and their money becoming less and less valuable. Artificially low interest rates, below the natural market rate, give market actors false signals. They see the value of savings and investment decline, particularly in light of inflation. Producers are misled by the cheap credit to undertake more expensive projects they otherwise would not have undertaken and which do not match real consumer demand, resulting in malinvestment. Consumers are misled by the cheap credit to take out loans in order to spend it on consumer goods. Andrew Dickson White, in his 1933 book Fiat Money Inflation in France, describes the results: “Then, too, as values became more and more uncertain, there was no longer any motive for care or economy, but every motive for immediate expenditure and present enjoyment. So came upon the nation the obliteration of thrift. In this mania for yielding to present enjoyment rather than providing for future comfort were the seeds of new growths of wretchedness: luxury, senseless and extravagant, set in: this, too, spread as a fashion.”503There are many other policies that also tend to have this effect on consumption. Bailouts and promises of bailouts for failing or failed businesses encourage riskier behavior. This includes the FDIC’s deposit insurance for banks, which also encourages those who keep their money in banks to be more complacent about the practices of their bank and the safety of their money. Various social-welfare policies also tend to have a deleterious effect. In the absence of such programs people must save for a rainy day and for their own retirement, or depend upon the generosity of others. When governments provide these necessities, the incentive to save for them is decreased or eliminated. When government promises to take care of your retirement, at least in part,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 401. I appeared on a Twitter Spaces discussion Jan. 12, 2023 for Sazmining, for the topic "Bitcoin & Property Rights," with Kent Halliburton and Logan Chipkin. A variety of questions were fielded. A synopsis and transcript are here, and re-pixeled below. Synopsis: Lawyer and libertarian theorist Stephan Kinsella joins Logan Chipkin and Kent Halliburton to discuss Bitcoin from a property rights perspective. If Bitcoin is not physical, how can anyone own it, if at all? Transcript: Kent Halliburton (00:06:31): Sure. Uh, thank you Logan, for the opportunity. You're gonna have to do a little intro for yourself as well. You do an excellent job hosting these spaces, but I operate as the president and COO here at Sats Mining, which means I, uh, manage all the internal affairs. Uh, my first career was in solar, rooftop solar. And, uh, very excited for this conversation to learn from you, Stephan. Um, definitely libertarianism has, uh, has gotten to be in my crosshairs, uh, the further I've gone down my, uh, my Bitcoin journey here. But, um, yeah, been, I think you are the first, uh, first Austro libertarian, uh, that I've spoken to, and, uh, came to learn a lot from you. Stephan Kinsella (00:07:16): Well, glad to, uh, meet you and, uh, prepare to have your mind blown. Logan Chipkin (00:07:21): . Uh, yes. So I'll, a few words about me. So I've been a, I'm a longtime writer, been writing about all sorts of stuff, journalism, physics, economics for years. And now I'm happy to be working with Sats Mining to really create a lot of our content around Bitcoin, Bitcoin mining and energy. Um, so that's a little bit about me. Uh, Stephan, before we start, do you wanna, uh, tell us a little bit about yourself and your background? Stephan Kinsella (00:07:46): Well, I live in Houston, Texas. I am from Louisiana originally. I'm a, I'm an attorney, a retired attorney. I'm a patent attorney, uh, but also have long time been a libertarian speaker, writer and thinker. Uh, uh, mostly influenced by the Austrian economics and anarchist, uh, you know, camp of Rothbard and Mises and these guys. So that's my take. I'm a, I'm a, I'm a, I'm a huge Bitcoin, um, uh, hopeful advocate. I don't know what you want to call it, . So, yeah, that's, that's my take. Plus I was an electrical engineer in, in, in college, so, uh, yeah, I'm, I'm interested in technology and, uh, those related matters too. Logan Chipkin (00:08:31): Perfect. Yeah, I'm just to let the audience know, FYI, I'm also essentially an Austro libertarian. I tend to not use that word, uh, in other contexts 'cause people probably don't often know what that is. But since Stephan's here, I figured why not break open the champagne bottles. Um, so it's nice to be amongst my people as it were. Not that Bitcoiners aren't, but anyway. So before we get into, so today we're gonna talk about Bitcoin and kind, kind of how Bitcoin relates to property rights, uh, and we'll see why that's relevant soon. But Stephan, before we get into that, what is Austro libertarianism and what is the Austro libertarian view of property rights? Stephan Kinsella (00:09:07): Yeah, that's interesting. So, and, and I'm, I'm assuming we have sort of a generic audience who probably doesn't know all this stuff. So, um, yeah, so basically, um, economics is just a study of wealth, how wealth is created in society, right? And so there is a free market economics and socialist economics and things like that. And there's a sub-school called Austrian Economics, which is a special type of approach to economics, pioneered by Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard and these guys. And, um, from, probably, from most of your audience's point of view, the, the fundamental thing to think about, uh, what's unique about Austrian economics is it's, it's focused on the individual look. So every individual is the actor and it's hyper free market. Like we need free market property rights for people to, um, trade with each other and to establish money prices and have an efficient economy. (00:10:10): So it's, it's kind of pro-capitalist. And then libertarianism is more the political side, which is basically an extreme or more principled or more OCD version of the idea that, which most, most Americans, the idea that most Americans believe in, which is that, um, we should have civil liberties, like personal liberties, like right to free speech, right to freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, but we should also have economic liberties, which means the right to trade, the right to profit, the right to own your property. Um, and so that is what I would call soft libertarianism and hard libertarianism would be the way we view it, which is like no exceptions, like we just like want, we apply the principles so strongly that we think the, the whole state is illegitimate in democracy and the whole, the whole deal. But basically in the meantime, we want there to be a minimal version of the state. So like, the state should only stop crime and protect your property rights, but that's, that's all they should do. So taxes should be very low, that kind of thing. And so if you combine, so Austro-libertarianism is a label that we give to people that have combined sort of this Austrian view of free-market economics with this sort of radical, uh, skepticism of, of state or government power with libertarianism. So that's sort of our perspective on these issues. Logan Chipkin (00:11:43): Got it. Got it. And so when you say right to free speech and civil liberties and right to profits, aren't these not precise from an Austrian perspective? Because strictly speaking, they're not property rights? Stephan Kinsella (00:11:56): Correct. Yeah, no, that's actually, that's actually correct. So, so, uh, yeah, if you wanna dive into the details and the weeds, um, uh, these things are the consequences of a more baseline level of rights. So if you basically have a system and a society where people want to get along with each other and they want to respect each other's rights, and they want to live and let live, I mean, there's, there's a whole movement, by the way, called Live and Let Live, which I'm part of, Mark Victor from Arizona, sort of this, um, the idea is that like most people believe, roughly speaking, in the Live and Let Live idea, like you should live and let other people live, which means you, you have your own stuff and they have their own stuff and you trade with each other and you cooperate and you negotiate. (00:12:44): And we, we tend to, uh, you know, oppose the, uh, the, uh, the use of force to take each other's stuff, right? So, but the, but the bottom line is the fundamental right is the right to integrity, the physical integrity of your body, which is expressed by what we call the non-aggression principle. Which means that, you know, you shouldn't hit people and kill people, and you shouldn't use their body without their permission. You shouldn't rape them or kill them or murder them or rob them or whatever, right? Because it's their body, not, it's not your body. So whenever you say something like, you oppose crime in, in a, in a, in a fundamental sense, you're, you're, you're in effect recognizing property rights in their body. 'Cause you're saying that, well, only one person can have control of this body. I mean, look, most people nowadays would not, uh, argue for slavery, chattel slavery like we had in the US, uh, um, in, in previous decades. (00:13:47): Okay? But if you're opposed to that, that means that's because you're saying that, well, you shouldn't be able to own someone else's body. So in other words, everyone owns their own body. Now, people get uncomfortable sometimes with that way of looking at it because then they're afraid we're, we're going on the other side too much, this capitalism commodification commercialization side where, oh, everything's a, uh, everything is a commodity. It's like, yeah, well, I think that's complete BS because if you say you're against slavery, all you're saying is every person owns their own body and you can't attack them or use their body without their permission. And there's nothing more libertarian than that. And the people that get concerned about this, oh, commodification of your body, it's like, I mean, let's, let's tackle one issue at a time, right? Like, let's first stop slavery and then we can worry about people using their bodies to sell themselves, uh, in labor contracts that you don't like, that you think are exploitative, but let's at least free them from the bonds of actually being attacked and assaulted by other people. Logan Chipkin (00:15:01): Okay? Now, is it possible for people to own ideas and abstractions from this perspective, if we're talking about owning physical bodies and basically universalizing that for all scarce resources? Okay, how can someone own an idea or an abstraction, if at all? Stephan Kinsella (00:15:16): That's, that's a good question. And so the way, the best way to answer it, uh, given a general audience who is not familiar with all. So let me just, uh, let me just, uh, try to explain a few broad concepts. Okay? So, um, ownership is a property concept. It's a legal concept. It means you have a property right recognized by the legal system to control a given scarce resource in the world. Okay? So that's what, that's what ownership means. Um, now then we, so, so, so the typical things everyone recognizes 'cause they're intuitive, they're common sense, they're traditional, you know, you can own animals, you can own a car, you can own land, you can own some iron ore you found from the ground, you can own some, some, some stone you mine from the, from a mountain. These are physical things and you can also own your body. (00:16:14): But all that,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 400. I appeared tonight (Dec. 7, 2022) on the LP Mises Caucus’s Ask an Austrian podcast and youtube channel, episode 11, at the request of Liam McCollum. I fielded as many questions as I could in the allotted time. The questions given to me ahead of the session are posted below, most of which I addressed. https://youtu.be/lcDVXIg_0Lw Questions: Karson Rosander - can you explain the history of the term “intellectual property” and how it’s evolved? How can I use that to explain it’s not like traditional property? Karson Rosander - what have you found to be the best way to sell your position on IP to conservatives? Harrison - Do you think the free market could develop some sort of protection for IP? Do you think blockchain might be a free market solution to IP? Michael - what do you think about Rothbard’s argument for natural law in ethics of liberty? Aaron Harris - what would be the most significant changes in society if IP laws were abolished? Is there a particular way they should be phased out? Chris Forrest - Do you think it's fair to say that public property (such as roads, libraries etc.) is rightfully owned by the taxpayer, as restitution for the aggression committed against them by the state as well as the companies that build these things, seeing as they're guilty of possession of stolen goods (tax money)? Zach Szklarz - why deontological liberty? Are consequentialist arguments wrong, or just not as good as natural-rights arguments? Is it fair to use consequentialist arguments to back up your ideas based on deontological libertarianism? (maybe explain deontological or consequentialist for the rest of the listeners) Adam Thuen - How did IP get established in the US, what was the intent in its adoption and how has it been corrupted? Given the acceleration of tech and its ability to drastically change quality of life, why haven’t timeframes for patents and copyrights been reduced? Adam Thuen - Is there an economic and legal case to abolish these frameworks? Where is the line between a chef trying to protect family recipes and an entrepreneurial person trying to make their way by providing a good or service? How does this play with our globs system? We all know China and other countries engage in corporate espionage (as well as many American companies) Liam - Are you in favor of decentralization on principle or is something like the incorporation doctrine legitimate? Do you think we should oppose centralization in all cases, even if it’s in the name of liberty? Are there any scenarios where a more centralized power should check a lower power? Brady - What is polycentric law? Are you in favor of it? Liam - What would a libertarian court system look like? Is a common-law system more consistent with libertarianism than the current centralized system with the US Supreme Court? Riley Wipf - What is the best way to use Austrian Economics in entry-level business to help create value? Dan Zembiak - The US is over $30 trillion dollars in debt. Who exactly is that debt owed to? Alex Dillard - Do you think it is viable for libertarians to work in coalitions with populist forces (such as independent leftists like Jimmy Dore, as well as paleoconservative and populist conservative forces)? Has the previous LP leadership tried to appeal too much to centrist forces? Joe - are you pessimistic in light of recent foreign policy developments? Sachin Patil - Dear Sir, How would a country (say like US) transform from democracy to Anarcho capitalism? Suppose the entire Government resigns. What then? Wouldn't the vaccum crested be filled by mafia? Or even a foreign country? Sachin Patil - How would defence, Police & Judiciary be privatised? How can we make the transformation from democracy to Anarcho Capitalism? Kareem Maize - What is the ricardian law of association in your own words and how does that relate to social cooperation? Zach Szklarz - what is your #1 non-libertarian book to read?