Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 470.

From my appearance on the Ayn Rand Fan Club with Scott Schiff and William. Their Shownotes:

Patent attorney, Libertarian & Ayn Rand fan Stephan Kinsella joins William & Scott to talk about his history in the liberty world and his unique view that property rights should only pertain to physical things, and not to intellectual property. They also talk about Elon Musk opening his patents and the effects of IP law on AI.

https://youtu.be/ax-QhyTGxw0?si=MyuQF4TfdeJQpQND

Related:

Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Anarchists and Others on Intellectual Property

“The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism” (Mises Daily 2010)

Yet another Randian recants on IP

An Objectivist Recants on IP

Pro-IP “Anarchists” and anti-IP Patent Attorneys

Patent Lawyers Who Oppose Patent Law

“The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism”

“The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism”

The Problem with Intellectual Property

A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP

Grok shownotes:

Episode Overview

In this episode of the Ayn Rand Fan Club, hosts Scott Schiff and William Swig engage in a thought-provoking discussion with Stephan Kinsella, a retired patent attorney, author, and libertarian thinker with a deep background in Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. The conversation delves into Kinsella’s journey from Objectivism to anarcho-capitalism, his critical stance on intellectual property (IP), and his broader views on libertarian principles. Recorded on August 18, 2025, the episode explores the philosophical and practical implications of IP laws, their impact on innovation, and their compatibility with property rights, while also touching on contemporary libertarian movements.

Stephan Kinsella’s Background and Philosophical Evolution

Kinsella shares his personal journey, starting with his introduction to Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead in high school, which sparked his interest in Objectivism. Initially a “hardcore Objectivist” for eight years, he later gravitated toward Austrian economics and anarcho-capitalism, influenced by thinkers like Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. As a patent attorney in Houston, Texas, Kinsella began questioning the validity of IP laws in the early 1990s, finding existing justifications—whether utilitarian or Objectivist—unsatisfactory. His career as a patent lawyer, paradoxically, coincided with his growing opposition to the patent and copyright system, which he argues violates fundamental property rights.

Critique of Intellectual Property

Kinsella’s primary critique of IP centers on its violation of tangible property rights. He argues that patents and copyrights impose non-consensual restrictions, or “negative servitudes,” on how individuals can use their own property, such as a printing press or factory. Drawing from libertarian principles, he contends that property rights should stem from homesteading or contract, not state-granted monopolies. Kinsella rejects both utilitarian arguments (e.g., IP promotes innovation) and natural rights arguments (e.g., creators inherently own their ideas), asserting that there’s no empirical evidence for underproduction of creative works without IP and that the concept of owning labor or ideas is flawed, rooted in a misinterpretation of John Locke’s labor theory.

Trademark, Defamation, and Reputation Rights

The discussion extends to trademark and defamation laws, which Kinsella also opposes. He explains that trademark law, originally intended to prevent consumer fraud, has evolved into a “reputation right” that protects brands like Rolex or Chanel from dilution, even absent deception. He argues that fraud laws already suffice to address deceptive practices, rendering trademark law unnecessary. Similarly, Kinsella rejects defamation laws, asserting there’s no property right in one’s reputation, as it’s merely others’ opinions. He distinguishes incitement to violence as a separate issue,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 469.

Related:

Tabarrok and Murphy: Why Are US Drug Prices So High?

Pharmaceutical Shills and Think Tank Corruption: Sally Pipes’s The World’s Medicine Chest: How America Achieved Pharmaceutical Supremacy―and How to Keep It

This is my appearance on Adam Haman’s podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack), episode HN 149, “Free The DRUGS! Stephan KINSELLA Counters Economist Alex TABARROK On Price Controls | Hn 149” (recorded June 25,  2025).

Tabarrok seems to be generally pro-free market and an Austrian or fellow traveler. However, although he sometimes criticizes existing IP law, he is not opposed to intellectual property (IP), unlike all the cool Austro-libertarians. (( The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism. )) And he often proposes changes to IP law—sometimes outrageously goofy ones, such as his truly insane idea of replacing the patent system with $3.5 trillion worth of taxpayer subsidies (if you take his logic for a taxpayer funded "medical innovation price fund" to its limit apply it to all forms of patented innovation and other forms of IP like copyright) (( $30 Billion Taxfunded Innovation Contracts: The “Progressive-Libertarian” Solution; Libertarian Favors $80 Billion Annual Tax-Funded “Medical Innovation Prize Fund; What's Worse: $80 Billion or $30 Million?. )) or based on simplistic assertions or confusions like the idea that we can empirically know that we are on the "wrong side" of the optimal patent term length on his ridiculous "Tabarrok Curve." (( Tabarrok: Patent Policy on the Back of a Napkin; The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright; Optimal Patent and Copyright Term Length. ))

So even though he's not against IP and thus not a very good libertarian, and he's not a Misesian since he seems to think utility is cardinal, measurable, and knowable, (( "The Problem with Intellectual Property" (2025), Part III.B.2. )) and he’s not an IP law expert either, he keeps trotting out proposals to “reform” IP, such as, I guess, banning free trade or urging that the US engage in IP imperialism to twist the arms of other countries like Australia (see below) to adopt the stronger US patent protections that Tabarrok seems to want to reform. (( See various posts on US style IP Imperialism. )) Read more at Tabarrok and Murphy: Why Are US Drug Prices So High? ...

Shownotes, links, grok summary, and transcript below.

https://youtu.be/gNRsjF3UXT4?si=2T9-4aE3cMPRoMD1

GROK SUMMARY:

In the Haman Nature episode featuring patent attorney and libertarian legal theorist Stephan Kinsella, hosted by Adam Haman, the discussion centers on the high cost of prescription drugs in the United States and the misconceptions surrounding proposed solutions, including critiques of arguments made by economist Alex Tabarrok. Kinsella challenges the notion that former President Trump’s executive order would effectively lower drug prices, arguing that the issue stems from a complex interplay of government regulations, subsidies, and intellectual property (IP) laws, particularly pharmaceutical patents. He disputes the idea that other countries "free ride" on a supposed U.S. "free market" system, emphasizing that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is far from a free market due to patent-driven monopolies that inflate prices and restrict competition. Kinsella’s critique, informed by his extensive work on IP (e.g., his discussions in the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 469, and articles on c4sif.org), highlights how these monopolies distort market dynamics and prevent natural price equalization through arbitrage across borders.

The conversation also addresses Tabarrok’s arguments, as discussed in his interview with Bob Murphy, particularly the concept of the "Tabarrok Curve," which posits an optimal level of IP protection to maximize innovation. Kinsella rejects this, asserting that pharmaceutical patents are not the definitive case for IP nece...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 467.

I was asked one Juani (@witheredsummer), an Argentinian Voluntarist, on Twitter and then later via email, to review his draft article "Ideas Are Free: A Case Against Intellectual Property" (text below) (I note that perhaps ironically, this title is almost identical to one of my own previous publications/speeches, Ideas are Free: The Case Against Intellectual Property: or, How Libertarians Went Wrong). I told him it was too long for me to fisk, got Grok to analyze it (see below), and told him to read up on some of my work and review the analysis, so that we could have a more productive conversation about it, and which I could also at least record for my podcast. This is our discussion.

In the end, he didn't really have many questions and I think he just wanted to vent about how bad IP is and express frustration at out outrageous and harmful it is. And suggest some ways to get through to people and propose reforms. Things I already knew and have been writing about for 30 years. He basically identifies many problems with and absurdities with IP law ... which he's right about and which I've mentioned ... and comes up with some proposals for IP reform that would reduce its harm. Again, which he's right about and which I and others have also proposed, but also which are unlikely to be adopted by those infested with the IP mind-virus. Not really sure what the point of this was, but here it is FWIW.

https://youtu.be/AS-8mFZGfnI

GROK SHOWNOTES:

[0:00-15:00] In this episode of the Stephan Kinsella podcast (KOL467), host Stephan Kinsella engages with Juani from Argentina to discuss intellectual property (IP) and its implications, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence (AI). Juani, a programmer and self-described libertarian, shares his consequentialist critique of IP, influenced by Kinsella’s work and his own essay, "Ideas for Free: A Case Against Intellectual Property." The conversation begins with Juani outlining his concerns about IP’s practical harms, such as its impact on innovation and culture, and transitions into a discussion about AI. They explore how AI’s reliance on vast datasets, often containing copyrighted material, raises legal questions about copying, authorship, and derivative works. Kinsella highlights the tension between copyright law and AI development, noting that current laws could stifle AI’s potential by limiting data access or imposing costly licensing requirements.

[15:01-1:37:33] The discussion deepens into specific examples of IP’s negative effects, including cultural erasure through Disney’s sanitized retellings of historical figures like Pocahontas and Mulan, and the economic burdens of pharmaceutical patents, which restrict access to life-saving drugs in poorer nations. Juani argues that IP acts as a form of censorship and reinforces wealth disparities, citing cases like patent trolling and the high cost of educational materials in developing countries. Kinsella agrees, emphasizing that IP distorts markets and innovation, and suggests that copyright’s harm to AI development may rival its threat to internet freedom. Toward the end, Juani proposes a reform to replace IP exclusivity with a decaying royalty system, which Kinsella views skeptically, arguing that entrenched IP proponents will resist any reduction in rights. The episode concludes with reflections on piracy, the success of platforms like Steam, and the cultural shift toward viewing copying as less harmful, signaling a potential change in public perception of IP.

 

Youtube Transcript and detailed Grok shownotes below.

Related:

KOL466 | On IP Reform and Improving IP law

FDA and Patent Reform: A Modest Proposal

“Absurd Arguments for IP”

“The Patent, Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Horror Files”

Boldrin & Levine on Covid-19, Vaccines, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and Patents

Patents and Pharmaceuticals

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 466.

https://youtu.be/JAwxQTrPDII

Re

.@NSKinsella has proposed a number of patent reforms if we decide as a society not to abolish the patent system. This is, in my view, a more plausible way forward (politically) instead of demanding the abolition of patents.https://t.co/q3a0U2HQJ6

In this annotated extract, I… https://t.co/Jm36N2kjxa pic.twitter.com/Fs1caiVven

— Sanjeev Sabhlok (@sabhlok) June 4, 2025

Sabhlok's markup of my proposals:

See How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law and “Reducing the Cost of IP Law,” Mises Daily (2010). See also Tabarrok’s Launching the Innovation Renaissance: Statism, not renaissance

How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law

by Stephan Kinsella on February 1, 2011

[From my Webnote series]

This is included as ch. 41 of Stephan Kinsella, ed., The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023).

See also proposals for reform in “Reducing the Cost of IP Law”; also Do Business Without Intellectual Property (Liberty.me, 2014); KOL164 | Obama’s Patent Reform: Improvement or Continuing Calamity?: Mises Academy (2011). And FDA and Patent Reform: A Modest Proposal

***

From my Mises blog post a year ago:

How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law

Archived comments (below)

January 13, 2010 by Stephan Kinsella

As I note in my article “Radical Patent Reform Is Not on the Way,” Mises Daily (Oct. 1, 2009), there is a growing clamor for reform of patent (and copyright) law, due to the increasingly obvious injustices resulting from these intellectual property (IP) laws. However, the various recent proposals for reform merely tinker with details and leave the essential features of the patent system intact. Patent scope, terms, and penalties would still be essentially the same. In the second article of this two-part series, “Reducing the Cost of IP Law,” Mises Daily, published today, I propose various reforms to the existing patent system–short of abolition–that would significantly reduce the costs and harm imposed by the patent system while not appreciably, or as significantly, reducing the innovation incentives and other purported benefits of the patent system. I list these changes below in generally descending order of importance, without elaboration, as they are discussed further in “Reducing the Cost of IP Law”:

Patent Law

Reduce the Patent Term

Remove Patent Injunctions/Provide Compulsory Royalties

Add a Royalty Cap/Safe Harbor

Reduce the Scope of Patentable Subject Matter

Provide for Prior-Use and Independent-Inventor Defenses

Instantly Publish All Patent Applications

Eliminate Enhanced Damages

Add a Working/Reduction to Practice Requirement1

Provide for Advisory Opinion Panels

Losing Patentee Pays

Expand Right to Seek Declaratory Judgments

Exclude IP from Trade Negotiations

[update: add a fair-use defense2

reinvogorate the reverse doctrine of equivalents defense ]

Other Changes

Increase the threshold for obtaining a patent

Increase patent filing fees to make it more difficult to obtain a patent

Make it easier to challenge a patent’s validity at all stages

Require patent applicants to specify exactly what part of their claimed invention is new and what part is “old” (e.g., by the use of European-style “characterized in that “claims)

Require patent applicants to do a search and provide an analysis showing why their claimed invention is new and nonobvious (patent attorneys really hate this one)

Limit the number of claims

Limit the number of continuation applications

Remove the presumption of validity that issued patents enjoy—e.g. a utility model or “petty patent” system, in which patent applications are examined only minimally and receive narrower protection; this type of IP right is already available in some countries) (( Reducing the Cost of IP Law; Tabarrok’s Launching ...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 465.

On stupid and confused "thickism" see various posts under tag thickism, and Cory Massimino, "Libertarianism is More than Anti-Statism," C4SS (April 8th, 2014).

GROK SHOWNOTES: [0:00–9:16] In this engaging episode of the Kinsella on Liberty podcast, Stephan Kinsella and Sheldon Richman tackle the contentious issue of pharmaceutical price controls under Trump’s executive order, questioning their equivalence to traditional price controls that distort markets. Kinsella, drawing on his extensive critique of intellectual property (Patents and Pharmaceuticals, 2023; Patents, Pharma, Government: The Unholy Alliance, 2024), argues that patents create artificial monopolies, so price controls countering these are not standard interventions but responses to government-granted privileges. Richman highlights FDA-imposed costs, which patents partially offset, though Kinsella counters that these costs are overstated, citing lower drug prices abroad (Drug Reimportation, 2009). They endorse reimportation as a market-based solution, referencing Connor O’Keefe’s analysis (Mises: How Trump Can Lower Drug Prices Without Price Controls, 2025), but criticize Trump’s coercive tactics as resembling a protection racket (Trump’s Worst Idea: Pharmaceuticals, 2025) (0:02–6:00). The discussion also critiques antitrust laws and secondary regulations, with Richman warning against Kevin Carson’s approach of layering controls atop privileges (Kevin Carson on Confiscating Property from the Rich, 2016) (6:00–9:16).

[9:16–1:13:35] The conversation shifts to a robust defense of the corporate form, addressing left-libertarian criticisms of limited liability and shareholder responsibility. Kinsella, aligning with Robert Hessen’s contractual view and his own writings (Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation, 2011; Left-Libertarians, Corporations, Expropriating Stakeholders, 2008), argues that limited liability is not a privilege but a logical outcome of action-based responsibility, where shareholders are not liable unless causally responsible for torts (Van Dun on Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement, 2009). Richman decries the pejorative use of “corporate” by figures like Roderick Long, rejecting claims that corporations inherently rely on state favoritism (Comment on Left-Libertarianism on Roderick Long’s Sub-Ex Dep Post, 2009) (9:16–36:01). They explore thick libertarianism, agreeing that individualism connects to broader values but remains distinct, and critique Walter Block’s evictionism on abortion, with Kinsella arguing fetuses are not trespassers due to maternal actions (Together Strong Debate with Walter Block, 2022) (36:01–1:13:35). A lighthearted discussion on pipe tobacco reflects their commitment to personal liberty, underscoring their broader libertarian principles (Wombatrons: Why I Am a Left-Libertarian, 2009).

https://youtu.be/5YaTsoDH9Eg

Grok detailed shownotes:

Detailed Segment Summary for Show Notes

Segment 1: Price Controls, Patents, and Reimportation (0:02–9:16)

Description and Summary: Kinsella andMemphis-based Robert Hessen and Sheldon Richman discuss Trump’s pharmaceutical price control executive order, questioning its implications. Kinsella, per his writings (Patents and Pharmaceuticals, 2023; Patents, Pharma, Government: The Unholy Alliance, 2024), argues that patents create monopoly prices, so price controls countering these aren’t standard market distortions, as patents themselves are government-granted (IP vs. Antitrust, 2005). Richman notes FDA costs inflate drug prices, but Kinsella cites lower prices abroad to argue these costs are overstated (Drug Reimportation, 2009) (0:02–2:28). They advocate reimportation, citing Connor O’Keefe’s market-based approach (Mises: How Trump Can Lower Drug Prices Without Price Controls, 2025), and criticize Trump’s coercive tactics as a protection racket (Trump’s Worst Idea: Pharmaceuticals,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 464.

I appeared on the new show Tyrant's Den a few days ago. It was released today (May 2, 2025) along with the other initial episodes.

Chat GPT shownotes:

In this engaging episode of The Tyrants' Den, host and guest delve into a wide-ranging discussion with Stephan Kinsella, a leading libertarian legal theorist and retired patent attorney. The conversation begins [0:01–7:20] with Kinsella’s background in patent law, where he candidly reflects on his anti-IP stance even while working within the IP system. He outlines how his libertarian beliefs shaped his legal career, how he avoided ethically troubling work like aggressive patent litigation, and how he transitioned to full-time libertarian scholarship, including his influential work on intellectual property and legal theory.

As the episode unfolds [7:20–59:45], Kinsella explores the philosophical foundations of law from Roman and common law to natural law, and discusses international law, war crimes, and higher-law principles that transcend statutory frameworks. He articulates his estoppel theory of rights, critiques legal positivism, and examines proportionality in justice. Later segments address libertarian perspectives on immigration policy, property rights, and the influence of Kant on modern libertarian thinkers like Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Kinsella closes by recommending his book Legal Foundations of a Free Society [59:00–59:45], which compiles decades of his work on law, rights, and liberty.

Grow shownotes:

[00:00–15:00] In this episode of the Tyrants Den podcast, recorded on February 24, 2025, host Tyrell (The Liberty Tyrant) interviews Stephan Kinsella, a prominent libertarian thinker and retired patent attorney, to discuss law, rights, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s contributions to libertarian theory. Kinsella shares his unique perspective as an anti-intellectual property (IP) patent attorney, explaining how he practiced patent law for 30 years while advocating for the abolition of IP, viewing his role as akin to providing defensive tools for clients. He introduces Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, which defends libertarian norms like self-ownership and the non-aggression principle by arguing that denying them creates a performative contradiction in discourse.

[15:01–59:45] The conversation explores Hoppe’s critique of the state as an aggressor and his vision for private, decentralized legal systems grounded in property rights. Kinsella discusses natural law, common law, and civil law, drawing on his experience in Louisiana’s civil law system and his international law studies. He explains his estoppel theory of rights, inspired by Hoppe and common law, which posits that aggressors cannot object to defensive force due to their prior actions, provided responses are proportional. The episode concludes with a discussion on immigration, where Kinsella proposes an invitation-based system to balance liberty and cultural concerns, and a plug for his book, Legal Foundations of a Free Society.

Transcript and detailed shownotes below.

https://youtu.be/B00FziQs3BU?si=-VENJyK6ylvdB_XH

 

ChatGPT Detailed Shownotes

Detailed Summary with Time-Stamped Segments (Shownotes Body)

[0:01–7:20] | Kinsella's Legal Career and Anti-IP Perspective

Kinsella introduces his background as a patent attorney and libertarian.

He explains how, despite opposing intellectual property, he practiced IP law ethically by avoiding aggressive enforcement work.

Notes how libertarian theory shaped both his legal and writing careers.

[7:20–11:20] | Foundations of Legal Systems: Roman vs. Common Law

Discusses the difference between civil (Roman-based) and common law traditions.

Explains Louisiana’s unique civil law system and its impact on his legal education.

Outlines historical influences on modern legal systems, including international and merchant law.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 463.

Update: See also KOL338 | Human Action Podcast Ep. 308 with Jeff Deist: Rothbard on Punishment, Property, and Contract and this Grok analysis of various problems with smart contracts including the fact that most loans are unsecured.

A followup discussion with André Simoni of Brazil about some questions he had about applying my/Rothbard’s title-transfer. See also KOL457 | Sheldon Richman & IP; Andre from Brazil re Contract Theory, Student Loan Interest Payments, Bankruptcy, Vagueness, Usury.

Grok Shownotes: 0:00–29:42] In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty podcast (KOL463), Stephan Kinsella engages in a follow-up discussion with André Simoni from Brazil, building on their prior conversation with Sheldon Richman (KOL457). The dialogue begins with André revisiting his concerns about usury, fractional-reserve banking, and the nature of loan contracts, proposing a libertarian limit on interest rates to prevent exploitative lending practices that could lead to effective enslavement. He argues that modern financial systems, including fractional-reserve banking and fiat currency, are interconnected mechanisms designed to promote unsustainable economic activity, drawing insights from Doug French’s book Walk Away. Kinsella challenges André’s framing, particularly his view of loan contracts as bilateral exchanges, asserting instead that they are unilateral title transfers under Rothbard’s title-transfer theory of contract. The discussion delves into the impracticality of “smart contracts” and escrow-based performance bonds, highlighting the inherent uncertainties in contractual damages and future obligations.

[29:43–1:39:34] The conversation shifts to a deeper exploration of risk, inalienability, and the moral hazards embedded in modern banking systems. André connects usury and fractional-reserve banking, arguing that banks exploit depositors and borrowers by offloading risk while profiting as intermediaries, creating a system akin to a Ponzi scheme propped up by state interventions like deposit insurance. Kinsella agrees that the current system is corrupt but emphasizes that in a free market with full disclosure, such practices would be unsustainable due to economic realities and the inability to insure against systemic risks. They discuss the legitimacy of loan contracts, with André expressing concern about contracts that shift excessive risk to borrowers, potentially violating inalienability principles. The episode concludes with a discussion on corporations and limited liability, with André suggesting that corporate structures exacerbate risk-shifting, while Kinsella defends the contractual basis of corporations, referencing his prior discussions with Jeff Barr (KOL414, KOL418). Links to further resources and a promise to continue the dialogue are provided.

 

Youtube Transcript and Detailed Grok Summary below.

https://youtu.be/8AfTdeiDJD0

Links:

Mercadente, The Illiberal Nature of Limited Liability: A Libertarian Critique

Recent Grok conversation

Libertarian Answer Man: Legal Entities and Corporations in a Free Society (Feb. 29, 2024)

Libertarian Answer Man: Corporations, Trusts, HOAs, and Private Law Codes in a Private Law Society (Nov. 11, 2023)

KOL414 | Corporations, Limited Liability, and the Title Transfer Theory of Contract, with Jeff Barr: Part I

KOL418 | Corporations, Limited Liability, and the Title Transfer Theory of Contract, with Jeff Barr: Part II

On Coinbase, Bitcoin, Fractional-Reserve Banking, and Irregular Deposits

UK Proposal for Banking Reform: Fractional-Reserve Banking versus Deposits and Loans

Musings on Fractional-Reserve Banking in a Bitcoin Age; Physicalist Shock Absorber Metaphors

The Great Fractional Reserve/Freebanking Debate

Jesús Huerta de Soto, Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles

Stephan Kinsella, “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract,” Papinian Press Working Paper #1 (Sep. 7, 2024)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 462.

I previously appeared on Joshua Smith's Break the Cycle, in July 2021 (KOL349 | CouchStreams Ep 58 on Break the Cycle with Joshua Smith). I had forgotten but we also did a short "CouchStreams After Hours" segment for subscribers which was, and still is, behind a paywall. We discussed various things—my scooter ride with Antony Sammeroff in Austin and travels with Sammeroff the previous months (see KOL330 | Lift Talks #2 With Kinsella & Sammeroff and KOL329 | Lift Talks #1 With Kinsella & Sammeroff), skiing accidents while skiing with Sammeroff, my joining the Libertarian Party, the Mises Caucus, loser brigade libertarians and the Hoppe photo with Michael Malice's helicopter gift (see below), when I was offered a job at Cato, when I was Disinvited From Cato, and so on. I had forgotten about this but stumbled across the file on my computer looking for something else, so decided to upload and podcast it. It's been long enough. Youtube transcript and Grok shownotes below.

https://youtu.be/9IHdN-_arsg

Paywalled version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW4qMNDBOtE

 

Facebook post about the helicopter. See also KOL244 | "YOUR WELCOME" with Michael Malice Ep. 001: Intellectual Property, Prostate Cancer

Even my buddy Tucker didn't like it! (we've made up, no worries)

 

If you think political violence is hilarious, and post pics with plastic helicopters to show it, you might examine your conscience.

— Jeffrey A Tucker (@jeffreyatucker) October 8, 2017

Hoppe Helicopter Controversy of 2017 - Stephan Kinsella responds:

https://youtu.be/rqipQNFSOEQ?si=skq0FFFwt5xSwhry&t=1

Grok Summary

Show Notes Summary

Video: "Break The Cycle w/ Joshua Smith" (https://youtu.be/9IHdN-_arsg) Podcast Episode: "KOL462 | Couchstreams After Hours: Break The Cycle with Joshua Smith" (https://stephankinsella.com/as_paf_podcast/kol462-couchstreams-after-hours-break-cycle-joshua-smith/)

Introduction and Libertarian Messaging (0:16 - 0:35)

Discussion on using popular culture and trolling to spread libertarian ideas, emphasizing the goal of abolishing restrictive systems and breaking the cycle of statism.

Scooter Adventures with Samuroff (1:04 - 3:13)

Stephan recounts his spontaneous travels with Samuroff, including scooter rides in various cities and skiing in Telluride, which led to multiple shoulder injuries, humorously reflecting on his balance issues.

Lift Talks and Skiing Experiences (3:29 - 4:49)

Stephan and Samuroff recorded libertarian discussions on ski lifts in Colorado, dubbed "Lift Talks," published as podcasts; Joshua shares his snowboarding background and contrasts skiing experiences.

Confronting the "Loser Brigade" and Hans-Hermann Hoppe (5:44 - 8:38)

Stephan discusses a controversial photo with Hans-Hermann Hoppe holding a toy helicopter, sparking outrage among some libertarians; he dismisses virtue-signaling critics and defends his independence from think tanks.

Mises Caucus and Libertarian Party Dynamics (9:42 - 18:36)

Stephan and Joshua discuss their support for the Mises Caucus, aiming to steer the Libertarian Party toward radical, Rothbardian principles, and critique past candidates like Gary Johnson for lacking libertarian conviction.

Cato Institute and Cancel Culture (19:34 - 21:12)

Stephan shares a story of being disinvited from a Cato Institute IP debate, highlighting their reluctance to engage with Mises-aligned libertarians, and notes Cato's payment to reimburse his ticket as a form of preemptive cancellation.

Closing and Contact Information (24:54 - 25:42)

Stephan thanks Joshua for the interview, mentions joining his Patreon, and provides his website (stephankinsella.com) and social media handles (nskinsella) for further engagement.

Transcript

0:16

much success turning people into

0:17

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 461.

This is my appearance on Adam Haman’s podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack), episode HN 119, “Stephan Kinsella Expounds on Philosophy And The Life Well Lived” (recorded Feb. 6, 2025—just before the Tom Woods cruise). We discussed philosophy and rights; my legal and libertarian careers (see Adopting Liberty: The Stephan Kinsella Story), and so on. Shownotes, links, grok summary, and transcript below.

https://youtu.be/Ekg5slP8xAg?si=6fNlmaeR6V7OMVEW

Adam’s Shownotes

Brilliant patent attorney, philosopher, legal theorist and libertarian anarchist Stephan Kinsella comes back on the show to take Adam to task for not defending atheism with enough vigor!

00:00 — Intro. Adam and Stephan reminisce about the Tom Woods Cruise! Also: proof that Stephan has a wife.

02:30 — Stephan's intellectual history about the "God issue".

11:30 — What is "sound epistemology" on this subject? What are good arguments for or against the existence of God? How should we think about the arguments of Thomas Aquinas et al?

19:55 — What is a good definition of "atheist"? How about "agnostic"? Plus more epistemology applied to metaphysical claims such as the existence of God. Also, our nature as humans is that we must act in the world even though we lack certainty and our knowledge is contextual.

32:38 — Adam asks Stephan: how would you react if you met a god-like being? Or Jesus Himself? A discussion of intellectual humility ensues. How does knowledge relate to human action? How do we acquire knowledge in the first place? Does this relate to AI?

47:09 — Adam admits he really doesn't know how anything works. Vinyl records are magic!

53:15 — Outro. It is agreed that Adam and Stephan are "the good atheists".

Links

George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

Barry Smith, In Defense of Extreme (Fallibilistic) Apriorism

On Peter Janich, see Handwerk und Mundwerk: Über das Herstellen von Wissen, Protophysics of Time, What Is Information?, Euclid's Heritage: Is Space Three-Dimensional?; and references/discussion in Hoppe on Falsificationism, Empiricism, and Apriorism and Protophysics and Hoppe, My Discovery of Human Action and of Mises as a Philosopher

Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method

David Kelley, Foundations of Knowledge lectures

——, The Evidence of the Senses: A Realist Theory of Perception

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

Biographical: Alan D. Bergman, Adopting Liberty: The Stephan Kinsella Story (2025); various biographical pieces on my publications page

From the messing-with-Adam section:

Grok discussion of use of optical metrology to play an LP by taking a photograph with a smartphone (estimate: 2033)

Grok answer to this prompt: Explain to Adam, who thinks this is all magic, how an LP records and plays sounds, what transducers are; and how modulation works, using some examples of carrier waves such as EM radio waves with both AM and FM, and laser light signals transmitted down fiber optic cables and using both analog modulation such as CATV signals and digital modulation such as for internet data; and how modems work.

Grok answer to this prompt: Now explain to Adam what "holes" are, in electric current, compared to electrons, what the mass and nature of holes are, and why the convention is for electric current, and electrons, to have a negative symbol. Also explain why electrical engineers use i instead of j for the imaginary number sqrt(-2). Also take a stab at explaining what imaginary numbers really are and how they are useful for things like freguency, and how they are not really "imaginary," and what "complex" numbers are; and how if you imagine a 2D plane with real numbers on the horizontal axis and imaginary numbers on the vertical or Y axis, and how you can picture 1xi as a 90° move from 1 on the real or X axis up to i on the imaginary or Y axis,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 460.

I mean the title says it all. I kept getting interrupted by calls and deliveries. Oh well, what you gonna do.

Links/Resourceshttps://youtu.be/rnDe920Ce40

China and IP "Theft"

Lacalle on China and IP “Theft”

All-In Podcast Concern over China and IP “Theft”

More of the “China is Stealing Our IP” nonsense

Tweet by Gordon Chang

“To Steal a Book is an Elegant Offense”—Chinese saying

Libertarian and IP Answer Man: Does China have “more fierce” competition because of weaker IP law?

Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Intellectual Property, the section “IP can’t be socialistic, since the Soviet Union didn’t recognize IP law”

other posts under the tag China-IP-theft or IP Imperialism

Update: Watching now. aaannnd it only took to 8 minutes in to mention China's "intellectual property theft". https://fedsoc.org/events/the-art-of-the-tariff-the-trump-administration-and-trade https://fedsoc.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_0QBJNVreRxGNoHAy0-rFoA#/registration

Trump's Proclamation World Intellectual Property Day, 2025: Of course these geniuses just repeat the same nonsense about IP being "the same as" property and how infringing IP is "theft" of course they are insinuating China "steals American IP," all of which are confused bullshit lies and distortions. See The China Stealing IP Myth; The Structural Unity of Real and Intellectual Property; Copying, Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement are not “Theft”, Stealing, Piracy, Plagiarism, Knocking Off, Ripping Off

IP vs. Plagiarism

KOL207 | Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Are Not About Plagiarism, Theft, Fraud, or Contract

“Types of Intellectual Property”

The Mountain of IP Legislation

General Case Against IP

Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023), Part IV

Against Intellectual Property

You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023)

Kinsella, ed., The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023);

See my post “Intellectual Properganda.” [↩]

Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft” and “piracy”

Related Videos/References

Matt Walsh on IP: fisked in Musk and Dorsey: “delete all IP law”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQK21AW6hFQ&t=2033s

China’s regime has signaled it will expropriate the intellectual property of foreign companies. It’s time for Prez Trump to protect American IP by using his authority to order U.S. companies to leave China. https://t.co/fa9qc1GNXc

— Gordon G. Chang (@GordonGChang) March 30, 2025

“Let Him COOK!” 90-Day Tariffs Pause, Bill Maher’s Trump Dinner + UFC Ovation [Piers Morgan, Gordon Chang, Cenk Uygur]

https://youtu.be/wOWAewTXiEI?si=ozXh2mIprUGodnCr

China's U.S. Intellectual Property Theft | CPAC | Gordon Chang:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZLy2KaNBBg