Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 449.

My discussion/interview by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project as part of his “Together Strong” debate series.

https://youtu.be/igflMs3VJPM?si=3MBYzu9cmeth4LlH

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 449.

I was interviewed by Logan Hertz, of Hazeltine LLC, about attempts by the Nelson Nash Institute, they of the poorly-named "Infinite Banking" concept, to use trademark to bully competitors. I discuss the general problem with IP and then apply it to trademark, and provide suggestions as to more "ethical" ways of using trademark and IP in an IP-world. See also Logan's LinkedIn post.

Grok shownotes: In this episode of the Hazeltine LLC podcast, host Logan Herz engages with Stephan Kinsella, a retired patent attorney and libertarian writer, to discuss the contentious issue of intellectual property (IP) law, focusing on the Nelson Nash Institute’s trademarking of the Infinite Banking Concept (IBC) [0:00-2:30]. Kinsella, author of Against Intellectual Property, outlines the three main types of IP—patents, copyrights, and trademarks—explaining their origins and how they function as government-granted monopolies that often stifle innovation, restrict free speech, and enable corporate bullying [2:30-15:00]. He argues that patent law hinders technological progress by delaying the public use of inventions, copyright law threatens free expression with excessively long terms, and trademark law, as seen with the IBC, grants undue control over descriptive phrases, allowing entities like the Nelson Nash Institute to legally intimidate competitors [15:00-20:10].

Kinsella critiques the Nelson Nash Institute’s approach to trademark enforcement, suggesting it reflects a broader problem with IP laws that prioritize corporate control over consumer protection [20:10-36:00]. He proposes an ethical alternative where the Institute could license the IBC trademark for a nominal fee with disclaimers, preserving their mark without aggressive enforcement [26:55-31:10]. The conversation also explores the hypocrisy of libertarian-leaning organizations using state-backed IP laws, the historical roots of copyright monopolies, and the sufficiency of contract and fraud laws to address consumer confusion without IP [31:10-44:00]. Kinsella concludes by challenging the Institute to reconsider their tactics and offers practical guidance for navigating IP laws ethically, emphasizing reputation and service quality over legal battles [1:12:00-1:14:15].

Transcript, time stamps, and Grok detailed summary below

For more, see: Do Business Without Intellectual Property.

https://youtu.be/EezJNq-FXQc?si=zPY2QdgLqeqqnf0-

Timestamps

0:00 Introduction to Stephan and Context

2:30 Intellectual Property Law

4:00 Problems with Intellectual Property Law

7:20 Patent law stifles innovation

8:40 Copyright law threatens free speech

10:15 Trademark law gives monopoly privilege

15:00 Three types of IP: patent, copyright, trademark

18:00 The IBC trademark is a real stretch

20:10 Trademarking IBC is a license for extortion and bullying

21:50 How IP law enabled the tech oligopoly

24:30 Tesla and Twitter counterexample

26:55 How the Nelson Nash Institute could ethically use a trademark

31:10 Intellectual property monopoly

33:30 The dubious origins of copyright

36:00 Trademarks protect the corporate bully, not the customer

39:45 We already have contract law

44:00 Reputation is ultimately what matters

45:35 Information cannot be "owned"

46:30 Negative easements

48:50 Intellectual property "rights" as monopoly privileges

50:25 Force and violence implicit in IP enforcement

53:15 Proper understanding of law

56:00 Legal positivism

1:00:00 Making distinctions

1:03:05 Constructive criticism of the Nelson Nash Institute

1:09:20 How trademarks encourage bullying

1:12:00 Stephan's ethical challenge to the Nelson Nash Institute

1:14:15 How to ethically navigate IP laws

#ethics #intellectualproperty #hazeltinellc #infinitebanking #infinitebankingconcept #nelsonnash #wholelifeinsurance #wholelife

Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block-by-Block Breakdown

Summary Overview

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 448.

This is my discussion with European patent attorney David Pearce, of the Tufty the Cat European IP blog (twitter). He and I were co-founders and members of the Advisory Council for the Open Crypto Alliance (2020–22). We discuss Craig Wright, nChain and bitcoin related patents, and so on (see video below).

https://youtu.be/3B1R_aTdQ0I

https://youtu.be/AJmPrbQ4NQU?si=yAGKMU590r6Vac4i

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 447.

This is from the show "Axioms of Liberty," which has another episode about my IP writing. This time, it's a reading of "Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society."

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 446.

This is from the show "Axioms of Liberty," which has another episode about my IP writing. This time, it's a reading of "Intellectual Property and Libertarianism."

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 445.

The show "Axioms of Liberty" has an episode about my IP writing, including readings of three early pieces: First, one of my earliest writings, Stephan Kinsella, "Letter on Intellectual Property Rights," IOS Journal 5, no. 2 (June 1995), pp. 12-13, and followed by David Kelley's response. Next, “Is Intellectual Property Legitimate?”, first published in the Pennsylvania Bar Association Intellectual Property Newsletter 1 (Winter 1998): 3 and republished in the Federalist Society’s Intellectual Property Practice Group Newsletter, vol. 3, Issue 3 (Winter 2000). And finally, "In Defense of Napster and Against the Second Homesteading Rule," LewRockwell.com (Sept. 4, 2000). I am not sure who this podcaster is, but he has my gratitude.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 444.

Update: Michael S. Milano, "Privacy and Fungibility: The Forgotten Virtues of Sound Money," Mises Wire (07/05/2025).

I had forgotten about this conversation with "AlexAnarcho" back in May 2024. Here it is.

Property rights, ideas & fungibility w/ Stephan Kinsella released 05/02/2024

Stephan Kinsella is a pioneer on the topic of intellectual property (IP). His arguments against IP also carry over to the cyberspace. Can you even "own" Bitcoin? After all, it is just a number on an elliptic curve...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 443.

“Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach,” 2024 Annual Meeting, Property and Freedom Society, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 22, 2024). This was also podcast  at the Property and Freedom Podcast as PFP285. See: “Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach” (PFS 2024). Below please find the Shownotes provided by Grok, my own notes from which the speech was read, the transcript (cleaned up by Grok), and an Article version of the speech prepared by Grok (here: Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Libertarian Solution (Grok)).

Grok shownotes:

Shownotes: KOL443 | Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach (PFS 2024)

In this thought-provoking talk from the 2024 Property and Freedom Society Annual Meeting, Stephan Kinsella tackles the contentious issue of abortion through a libertarian lens, acknowledging its complexity and the deep divisions it creates. He traces the historical pro-choice leanings of libertarians, particularly Objectivists like Ayn Rand, while noting the rise of pro-life sentiments within modern paleo-libertarian circles, exemplified by the 2022 Libertarian Party platform change led by the Mises Caucus. Kinsella critiques both secular and religious arguments, dismissing Doris Gordon’s Libertarians for Life stance as overly simplistic and finding Walter Block’s “evictionism” convoluted, as it frames the fetus as a trespasser despite most pregnancies resulting from voluntary acts. Reflecting on his own evolution from a staunch pro-choice Randian to a more nuanced perspective as a parent, Kinsella grounds his analysis in the libertarian principle that rights stem from reasoning capacity, a concept rooted in Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s discourse ethics.

Kinsella argues that the abortion debate is intractable due to irreconcilable religious, feminist, and philosophical differences, making state intervention problematic. He proposes a “radically decentralist” solution: until birth, the family unit, particularly the mother, should have jurisdiction over abortion decisions, free from external legal interference. This approach, inspired by Hoppe’s 2011 remarks in Romania, avoids intrusive policing—such as monitoring pregnancies for late-term abortions deemed murder—and respects the private nature of family matters. Kinsella suggests that positive obligations may arise from voluntarily conceiving a child, akin to rescuing someone you’ve endangered, but maintains that legal systems should defer to families until the child is born, when homicide laws apply. He references Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism to underscore that a born child owns its body, marking birth as a clear legal boundary.

This decentralist framework aligns with libertarian principles of minimizing state overreach and respecting individual autonomy, as Kinsella elaborates in his broader work, such as Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Papinian Press, 2023). The episode also points to related discussions, including Christos Armoutidis’ “Preargumentation Ethics and the Issue of Abortion” (J. Libertarian Stud., 2024) and Oscar Grau’s chapter in A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Papinian Press, 2024), for further exploration of libertarian perspectives on abortion. By advocating for family jurisdiction, Kinsella offers a pragmatic way to navigate this divisive issue, leaving listeners with a compelling case for decentralization in one of libertarianism’s most challenging debates.

***

Update: see Christos Armoutidis, "Preargumentation Ethics and the Issue of Abortion," J. Libertarian Stud. 28, no.1 (2024): Abstract:

The issue of abortion—and, more broadly, the issue concerning the source of rights or, more precisely, when and why humans acquire or recognize rights—has long vexed libertarians. It’s a complex issue with numerous good-faith and reasonable arguments that lead to differing conclusions. This issue is usually brought up when the topic of abortion is discussed ...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 442.

This is a debate between me and Walter Block about voluntary slavery contracts, hosted by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project as part of his "Together Strong" debate series. (See previous episode KOL426)

Grok shownotes: [0:00–30:00] In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty podcast (KOL442), Stephan Kinsella debates Walter Block in the “Together Strong” series, hosted by Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity, focusing on the contentious issue of voluntary slavery contracts. Kinsella argues against their enforceability, asserting that self-ownership is inalienable due to the direct connection between an individual and their body, making such contracts invalid as they cannot transfer control over one’s will. He emphasizes that contracts transfer titles to external property, not obligations over one’s body, and that consent can be revoked, rendering slavery agreements unenforceable. Block defends voluntary slavery, arguing that if individuals can sell their labor or body parts, they should be able to contractually commit to servitude, viewing such agreements as extensions of libertarian freedom to contract.

[30:01–1:12:22] The debate intensifies as Block posits that refusing to enforce voluntary slavery contracts undermines libertarian consistency, equating it to denying other contractual obligations. Kinsella counters that Block’s view conflates economic and legal exchanges, ignoring the unique nature of body ownership, which cannot be alienated like external goods due to its non-acquired status. Sands probes both sides, exploring practical implications and edge cases, such as debt repayment or organ sales. Kinsella clarifies that responsive force against aggressors (e.g., imprisoning criminals) is justified, but voluntary slavery lacks such justification, as mere promises do not bind the will. The episode concludes with Sands summarizing the philosophical divide, with Kinsella reinforcing inalienability and Block advocating contractual liberty, leaving listeners to ponder the limits of consent in a free society.

Unedited transcript (from Youtube) below.

https://youtu.be/x6ecMmBpGs8?si=veUW9EnXhwujEAo1

Grok detailed shownotes:

Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Segments

Segment 1: Introduction and Opening Arguments (0:00–15:00)

Description: Matthew Sands introduces the “Together Strong” debate, pitting Stephan Kinsella against Walter Block on the enforceability of voluntary slavery contracts. Kinsella opens by arguing that self-ownership is inalienable, rooted in the direct, non-acquired connection to one’s body, making slavery contracts invalid as they cannot transfer control over one’s will. He draws on his title-transfer theory of contract, asserting that contracts only transfer titles to external property, not obligations over one’s body. Block counters that individuals should be free to contract into servitude, likening it to selling labor or body parts, and argues that denying this undermines libertarian freedom.

Summary:

Sands sets up the debate, outlining the voluntary slavery controversy (0:00–2:45).

Kinsella argues self-ownership is inalienable, as body control cannot be contractually transferred (2:46–6:30).

Introduces title-transfer theory, stating contracts shift property titles, not body obligations (6:31–9:15).

Block defends voluntary slavery, comparing it to labor contracts and asserting contractual liberty (9:16–12:00).

Sands asks about consent’s limits, prompting initial clarifications from both (12:01–15:00).

Segment 2: Philosophical Foundations and Contract Theory (15:01–30:00)

Description: Kinsella elaborates that body ownership differs from external property, as the latter is acquired through homesteading or contract, while the body is inherently owned. He argues that consent can be revoked, invalidating slavery contracts, as promises do not bind the will.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 441.

This is Episode 238 of The Bitcoin Standard Podcast, with Dr. Saifedean Ammous, author of The Bitcoin Standard. From his shownotes:

Legal Scholar Stephan Kinsella joins to discuss his new book, Legal Foundations of a Free Society, in which he discusses libertarianism as a system for determining legitimate property rights, why property rights are important, and the problem with intellectual property rights..

https://youtu.be/l-0IG38raGw?si=NNCOa3-AKn1YkQl-