Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 451.

My recent appearance on The Rational Egoist. (Spotify)

Shownotes:

Debating the Nature of Rights with Stephan Kinsella

In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz engages in a stimulating debate with libertarian writer and patent attorney Stephan Kinsella on the nature of rights.

Drawing from his book Legal Foundations of a Free Society and his extensive work on legal and political theory, Kinsella offers his perspective on the origins, scope, and application of individual rights.

Together, they examine differing philosophical interpretations and discuss how rights function in a free society.

This thought-provoking conversation invites listeners to question and refine their understanding of one of the most fundamental concepts in political philosophy.

Grok shownotes: In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL451), recorded on January 29, 2025, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella debates economist Stan Liebowitz on the nature and legitimacy of property rights, focusing on intellectual property (IP) and its economic implications, hosted by the Federalist Society (0:00:00-10:00). Kinsella argues that IP, particularly patents and copyrights, violates property rights by granting state-enforced monopolies over non-scarce ideas, using Austrian economics to emphasize that property rights apply only to scarce, rivalrous resources, and critiques IP’s economic harms like litigation costs and innovation barriers (10:01-40:00). Liebowitz, defending IP, contends that it incentivizes innovation by protecting creators’ profits, arguing that without IP, underinvestment in creative industries would occur, and challenges Kinsella’s dismissal of utilitarian benefits (40:01-1:10:00).

The debate intensifies as Kinsella refutes Liebowitz’s utilitarian claims, citing empirical studies showing no clear innovation benefits from IP, while Liebowitz insists on the necessity of IP for industries like pharmaceuticals and software, accusing Kinsella of ignoring practical realities (1:10:01-1:40:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella addresses audience questions on IP’s impact and property rights, maintaining that market mechanisms like first-mover advantages suffice, while Liebowitz defends IP as a pragmatic necessity, highlighting a divide between principled libertarianism and economic pragmatism (1:40:01-1:56:09). Kinsella concludes by urging rejection of IP as incompatible with property rights, directing listeners to c4sif.org, delivering a robust critique. This episode is a compelling clash of libertarian and utilitarian perspectives on IP.

Youtube transcript and Detailed Grok shownotes below:

https://youtu.be/_rvJ2H8r5Z8?si=890cUejq8lRh4ISj

https://youtu.be/LPCg8NEPoNg?si=4djdwXxpR2CYSVA2

GROK DETAILED SHOWNOTES

Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Blocks

The summary is based on the transcript provided at stephankinsella.com for KOL451, a 1-hour-56-minute debate recorded on January 29, 2025, hosted by the Federalist Society, featuring Stephan Kinsella debating economist Stan Liebowitz on the nature of property rights and IP. The time blocks are segmented to cover approximately 5 to 15 minutes each, as suitable for the content’s natural divisions, with lengths varying (8-15 minutes) to reflect cohesive portions of the debate. Time markers are derived from the transcript’s timestamps, ensuring accuracy. Each block includes a description, bullet points for key themes, and a summary, capturing the debate’s arguments and dynamics.

0:00:00-8:00 (Introduction and Opening Statements, ~8 minutes)

Description: The Federalist Society host introduces the debate, outlining the topic of property rights, with a focus on IP, and presents Kinsella and Liebowitz as debaters with opposing views (0:00:00-0:02:00). Kinsella opens, arguing that IP, particularly patents and copyrights, violates property rights by creating state-enforced monopolies over non-scarce ideas, grounded in Austrian economics’ emphasis on scarce, rivalrous resources (0:02:01-0:05:00). Liebowitz begins his statement, defending IP as a necessary mechanism to incentivize innovation, arguing that creators need profit protection to justify investment in costly endeavors like drug development (0:05:01-0:08:00). The tone is professional, setting up a clear ideological divide. Key Themes:

Introduction of debate topic and participants (0:00:00-0:02:00).

Kinsella’s anti-IP stance, rooted in property rights and scarcity (0:02:01-0:05:00).

Liebowitz’s defense of IP as an innovation incentive (0:05:01-0:08:00).

Summary: Kinsella opens with a libertarian critique of IP as a violation of property rights, while Liebowitz defends IP’s role in incentivizing innovation, establishing the debate’s core conflict.

8:01-23:00 (IP and Property Rights: Philosophical Foundations, ~15 minutes)

Description: Kinsella elaborates on his anti-IP stance, arguing that property rights apply only to scarce resources to avoid conflict, not to ideas, which are non-scarce and infinitely replicable, using examples like a patented mousetrap to show IP’s restriction on tangible property use (8:01-13:00). Liebowitz counters that IP is a legitimate extension of property rights, protecting the creator’s effort and investment, and argues that without IP, free-riding would discourage innovation, particularly in high-cost industries (13:01-18:00). Kinsella responds that IP creates artificial scarcity, violating the non-aggression principle (NAP), and challenges Liebowitz’s assumption that creation justifies ownership, emphasizing first-use principles (18:01-23:00). The exchange is rigorous, with philosophical differences evident. Key Themes:

Kinsella’s argument that IP violates property rights by monopolizing non-scarce ideas (8:01-13:00).

Liebowitz’s defense of IP as protecting creator investment (13:01-18:00).

Kinsella’s critique of creation-based ownership and artificial scarcity (18:01-23:00).

Summary: Kinsella argues IP’s philosophical illegitimacy, while Liebowitz defends it as a creator’s right, highlighting a divide between libertarian principles and utilitarian justifications.

23:01-38:00 (Economic Impacts of IP: Innovation and Costs, ~15 minutes)

Description: Kinsella critiques IP’s economic harms, citing studies (e.g., Boldrin and Levine, 2013) showing no clear innovation benefits and billions in litigation costs, arguing that IP stifles competition and innovation, particularly in tech and pharmaceuticals (23:01-28:00). Liebowitz counters that IP is essential for industries requiring heavy R&D, like drugs and software, claiming that without patents, underinvestment would occur, and cites historical innovation tied to IP regimes (28:01-33:00). Kinsella responds that market mechanisms, such as first-mover advantages and branding, incentivize innovation without IP’s coercive monopolies, challenging Liebowitz’s reliance on state intervention (33:01-38:00). The debate grows intense, with both sides citing economic evidence. Key Themes:

Kinsella’s critique of IP’s economic harms and lack of innovation benefits (23:01-28:00).

Liebowitz’s defense of IP as essential for R&D-heavy industries (28:01-33:00).

Kinsella’s argument for market incentives over IP monopolies (33:01-38:00).

Summary: Kinsella highlights IP’s economic costs and advocates market alternatives, while Liebowitz defends IP’s necessity for innovation, underscoring their contrasting economic perspectives.

38:01-53:00 (Utilitarian Arguments and Philosophical Rebuttals, ~15 minutes)

Description: Liebowitz emphasizes IP’s utilitarian benefits, arguing that patents and copyrights ensure creators can profit, preventing free-riding and fostering economic growth, particularly in creative sectors (38:01-43:00). Kinsella refutes this, citing empirical studies (e.g., Machlup, 1958) showing inconclusive innovation benefits and arguing that IP’s state-backed monopolies violate libertarian principles, regardless of outcomes (43:01-48:00). Liebowitz accuses Kinsella of ignoring practical realities, like the need for IP in pharmaceuticals, while Kinsella insists that principled property rights outweigh utilitarian considerations, using analogies like a car versus a recipe (48:01-53:00). The exchange is heated, with philosophical and practical tensions clear. Key Themes:

Liebowitz’s utilitarian defense of IP to prevent free-riding (38:01-43:00).

Kinsella’s empirical and principled rebuttal, prioritizing property rights (43:01-48:00).

Liebowitz’s practical concerns vs. Kinsella’s analogies and principles (48:01-53:00).

Summary: Liebowitz defends IP’s utilitarian benefits, while Kinsella counters with empirical evidence and principled arguments, highlighting a divide between pragmatism and libertarian ideology.

53:01-1:08:00 (Deepening the IP Debate: Market Alternatives and State Role, ~15 minutes)

Description: Kinsella argues that market alternatives, like open-source software and first-mover advantages, outperform IP in fostering innovation, citing examples like Linux and creative commons (53:01-58:00). Liebowitz counters that these are exceptions, insisting that IP is critical for mainstream industries, particularly where high upfront costs deter investment without profit guarantees (58:01-1:03:00). Kinsella challenges Liebowitz’s reliance on state intervention, arguing that IP’s coercive nature contradicts free market principles, while Liebowitz defends the state’s role in enforcing IP to stabilize markets (1:03:01-1:08:00). The debate remains intense, with both sides entrenched in their views. Key Themes:

Kinsella’s defense of market alternatives to IP, like open-source models (53:01-58:00).

Liebowitz’s insistence on IP’s necessity for high-cost industries (58:01-1:03:00).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 450.

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

Grok shownotes: [0:00–30:00] In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty podcast (KOL450), Stephan Kinsella is interviewed by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project for the “Together Strong” debate series, with Econ Bro as a co-participant. The discussion centers on intellectual property (IP), with Kinsella articulating his libertarian critique that IP, including patents and copyrights, is an unjust state-granted monopoly that restricts innovation, free speech, and competition. He argues that ideas are non-scarce, non-rivalrous resources, and copying does not constitute theft, as it does not deprive the creator of their work. Sands facilitates the debate, probing Kinsella’s views on how creators can profit without IP, while Econ Bro challenges the practical implications, expressing concern about incentives for innovation in a post-IP world.

[30:01–1:04:58] Kinsella elaborates on alternative models for creators, citing examples like crowdsourcing (e.g., Iron Sky), open-source software, and first-mover advantages, which thrive without IP enforcement. He critiques the historical roots of copyright in state control (e.g., Statute of Anne) and its modern extension through corporate lobbying (e.g., Disney’s Mickey Mouse). Econ Bro raises objections about potential exploitation of creators, but Kinsella counters that market dynamics and reputation suffice to reward innovation, and IP’s costs (e.g., litigation, suppressed competition) outweigh its benefits. The episode concludes with Sands summarizing the arguments, emphasizing the libertarian principle of property rights in scarce resources, and Kinsella reinforcing that technology (e.g., piracy, blockchain) renders IP increasingly unenforceable, aligning with a freer, decentralized future.

Update: see Nations of Sanity on IP

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

Grok detailed summary:

Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Segments

Segment 1: Introduction and IP Critique (0:00–15:00)

Description: Matthew Sands introduces the “Together Strong” debate, featuring Stephan Kinsella and Econ Bro discussing intellectual property. Kinsella opens with his libertarian stance, arguing that IP (patents, copyrights, trademarks) is a state-enforced monopoly that violates property rights by restricting how individuals use their own resources (e.g., printing presses, factories). He defines ideas as non-rivalrous, meaning one person’s use doesn’t diminish another’s, and asserts that copying is not theft since the original creator retains their work. Sands sets the stage for a balanced debate, asking how creators can thrive without IP protections.

Summary:

Sands introduces the debate, outlining Kinsella’s anti-IP position and Econ Bro’s role as a challenger (0:00–2:30).

Kinsella argues IP is a state-granted monopoly, not a natural right, restricting freedom to use physical property (2:31–5:45).

Defines ideas as non-rivalrous, distinguishing them from scarce resources like land or goods (5:46–8:20).

Asserts copying isn’t theft, as creators retain their work, challenging the moral basis of IP (8:21–11:00).

Sands asks about creator incentives, setting up Econ Bro’s counterarguments (11:01–15:00).

Segment 2: Historical Context and Creator Incentives (15:01–30:00)

Description: Kinsella traces copyright’s origins to the printing press and the Statute of Anne (1709), which granted monopolies to publishers under state control, a system perpetuated by modern corporate lobbying (e.g., Disney’s copyright extensions). Econ Bro questions how creators would be incentivized without IP, fearing reduced innovation. Kinsella counters with examples like open-source software (e.g., Linux) and crowdsourced projects (e.g., Iron Sky), arguing that first-mover advantages, reputation, and market demand suffice. Sands probes the balance between rewarding creators and ensuring public access to ideas.

Summary:

Kinsella details copyright’s roots in state monopolies, citing the Stationers Company and Disney’s influence (15:01–18:30).

Econ Bro expresses concern about innovation without IP, fearing creators’ works could be exploited (18:31–21:15).

Kinsella highlights open-source and crowdsourced models, emphasizing market-driven incentives (21:16–25:00).

Discusses first-mover advantages and reputation as sufficient rewards, reducing IP’s necessity (25:01–27:45).

Sands asks about balancing creator rights with public access, prompting deeper exploration (27:46–30:00).

Segment 3: Economic and Social Impacts of IP (30:01–45:00)

Description: Kinsella quantifies IP’s economic costs, estimating trillions in losses due to suppressed innovation and litigation (e.g., patent trolls). He argues that IP benefits narrow corporate interests (e.g., pharmaceuticals, Hollywood) while harming consumers and smaller innovators. Econ Bro raises the risk of large firms outcompeting small creators without IP, but Kinsella counters that IP itself enables corporate dominance by creating barriers to entry. Sands explores the social implications, with Kinsella warning that copyright threatens free speech and internet freedom through mechanisms like takedown notices and six-strikes rules.

Summary:

Kinsella estimates IP’s economic toll, citing litigation and suppressed innovation (30:01–33:20).

Argues IP benefits corporations, not individual creators, creating market barriers (33:21–36:10).

Econ Bro worries about large firms exploiting creators, but Kinsella says IP exacerbates this (36:11–39:00).

Kinsella warns of copyright’s threat to free speech, citing internet censorship (39:01–42:30).

Sands questions societal impacts, leading to discussion of decentralized alternatives (42:31–45:00).

Segment 4: Technology and the Future of IP (45:01–1:00:00)

Description: Kinsella highlights technology’s role in undermining IP, citing piracy (e.g., Napster, torrenting), blockchain, and decentralized platforms that evade enforcement. He views this as a positive shift toward a freer internet, aligning with libertarian principles. Econ Bro acknowledges the difficulty of enforcing IP but remains concerned about fairness to creators. Kinsella reiterates that market mechanisms (e.g., subscriptions, merchandise) and voluntary contracts can replace IP, drawing on his title-transfer theory of contract. Sands facilitates a discussion on how decentralization empowers individuals over state-backed systems.

Summary:

Kinsella celebrates piracy and blockchain for weakening IP enforcement, promoting freedom (45:01–48:15).

Econ Bro notes enforcement challenges but seeks fairness for creators (48:16–51:00).

Kinsella advocates market solutions like subscriptions, citing his contract theory (51:01–54:30).

Discusses decentralization’s role in bypassing state control, empowering individuals (54:31–57:45).

Sands explores how technology reshapes creator-public dynamics (57:46–1:00:00).

Segment 5: Conclusion and Reflections (1:00:01–1:04:58)

Description: Sands summarizes the debate, highlighting Kinsella’s argument that IP violates property rights in scarce resources and Econ Bro’s concerns about creator incentives. Kinsella reinforces that IP is a statist tool, increasingly irrelevant due to technological advances, and that libertarian principles prioritize competition and freedom over monopolies. Econ Bro concedes some points but remains skeptical about abolishing IP entirely. Sands concludes by encouraging listeners to explore Nations of Sanity’s resources, while Kinsella plugs his website (C4SIF.org) for further reading on IP and libertarian theory.

Summary:

Sands recaps Kinsella’s anti-IP stance and Econ Bro’s incentive concerns (1:00:01–1:02:00).

Kinsella reiterates IP’s obsolescence due to technology and its conflict with liberty (1:02:01–1:03:30).

Econ Bro acknowledges technological shifts but questions total IP abolition (1:03:31–1:04:00).

Sands promotes Nations of Sanity, and Kinsella directs listeners to C4SIF.org (1:04:01–1:04:58).

References:

Stephan Kinsella’s Against Intellectual Property (Mises Institute).

C4SIF.org for Kinsella’s IP resources.

The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract by Stephan Kinsella (Papinian Press, 2024).

Nations of Sanity project (nationsofsanity.com) and “Together Strong” series.

Historical references: Statute of Anne (1709), Disney’s copyright extensions.

Transcript

0:02

hello it's Matthew here from the nations of Sanity project I'm doing a video for the together strong project which is a

0:08

Project based on bringing people together for common cause more specifically this channel was focused on

0:13

bringing bringing libertarian thinkers together to discuss and debate various elements in the hope of getting closer

0:20

to Truth uh we've already had a couple of very interesting debates on this channel um but today we're going to have

0:26

a discussion on intellectual property which is an area of libertarianism that

0:31

perhaps gets a bit neglected not always mentioned and often misunderstood by many people um so I've got two people

0:38

here with me to have this conversation one is Eon bro who's a Libertarian who's doing some tremendous work in Nigeria

0:46

educating people about property rights libertarian principles as well as things like inflation um and the other person I

0:53

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

Stephan Kinsella, a retired patent attorney and libertarian theorist, joins Logan Herz to dissect the flaws of intellectual property (IP) law, particularly the Nelson Nash Institute’s trademarking of the Infinite Banking Concept (IBC). Kinsella argues that IP laws—patents, copyrights, and trademarks—are government-granted monopolies that harm innovation, free speech, and competition. He critiques the Institute’s legal actions against competitors as unethical and proposes ethical alternatives, emphasizing the sufficiency of contract and fraud laws to protect consumers without IP. The discussion also covers the historical and philosophical underpinnings of IP, its role in enabling corporate bullying, and practical strategies for businesses to navigate IP laws responsibly.

0:00-5:00 – Introduction and Context of IP Law

Description: Logan Herz introduces Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and libertarian writer, and sets the stage for discussing the Nelson Nash Institute’s trademarking of the Infinite Banking Concept (IBC), a phrase used publicly for decades before the Institute’s actions [0:00-1:18]. Kinsella provides an overview of his background as an IP attorney and libertarian theorist, explaining that IP law encompasses patents, copyrights, and trademarks, each with distinct purposes and impacts [1:36-2:30].

Summary: The episode begins with context about the Nelson Nash Institute’s controversial trademarking of IBC and Kinsella’s expertise in IP law, highlighting his critical perspective on IP as a libertarian.

5:00-15:00 – Problems with IP Law: Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks

Description: Kinsella delves into the problems with IP law, arguing that patents stifle innovation by delaying public access to inventions for 17 years [7:20-8:39]. Copyrights, with terms extending to the author’s life plus 70 years, threaten free speech by restricting creative works like sequels or fan fiction [8:40-10:09]. Trademarks grant monopoly privileges over phrases, enabling entities like the Nelson Nash Institute to control descriptive terms like IBC, which Kinsella sees as unjustified [10:15-15:00].

Summary: This segment outlines the detrimental effects of IP laws, with patents impeding technological progress, copyrights limiting free expression, and trademarks fostering monopolistic control, as exemplified by the IBC trademark.

15:00-30:00 – Trademarking IBC and Ethical Alternatives

Description: Kinsella explains the three main IP types—patents, copyrights, and trademarks—detailing their requirements and limitations [15:03-18:05]. He argues that trademarking IBC is a stretch due to its descriptive nature and equates it to a license for extortion, as the Institute uses it to bully competitors [18:05-20:10]. He illustrates how IP laws enable tech oligopolies, citing the smartphone patent wars, but notes exceptions like Tesla and Twitter, which avoid aggressive patent enforcement [21:50-24:36]. Kinsella proposes an ethical approach for the Institute: licensing the IBC trademark for a nominal fee with disclaimers to avoid confusion without bullying [26:55-31:10].

Summary: The discussion focuses on the IBC trademark’s questionable validity and its use for coercion, contrasted with ethical alternatives like nominal licensing, and highlights how IP laws foster corporate dominance, with rare exceptions like Tesla.

30:00-45:00 – Hypocrisy, Historical Context, and Contract Law Sufficiency

Description: Kinsella notes the libertarian hypocrisy within the Nelson Nash Institute, which uses state-backed IP laws despite its free-market rhetoric [31:12-32:02]. He traces the dubious origins of copyright to government monopolies like the Stationers’ Company, which controlled printing for a century [33:30-36:00]. He argues that trademarks protect corporate bullies, not customers, as they shift legal rights from defrauded consumers to trademark holders, and that contract and fraud laws are sufficient to address consumer confusion [36:00-44:00].

Summary: This block critiques the Institute’s libertarian inconsistency, explores copyright’s monopolistic roots, and asserts that existing contract and fraud laws adequately protect consumers, rendering trademark law unnecessary.

45:00-1:00:00 – Philosophical Underpinnings of IP and Legal Theory

Description: Kinsella argues that information cannot be owned, as it is not a scarce resource, and IP enforcement destroys real property rights by restricting how individuals use their tangible assets [45:35-53:15]. He likens IP rights to negative easements imposed without consent, contrasting them with voluntary agreements like homeowners’ associations [46:30-52:45]. The discussion shifts to legal theory, distinguishing natural law (moral, justified law) from legal positivism (state-enforced law), which dominates modern IP systems [53:15-56:02].

Summary: Kinsella frames IP as an unjust monopoly privilege that violates property rights, using the negative easement analogy, and critiques the legal positivism underpinning IP laws, which prioritizes state decrees over moral justice.

1:00:00-1:15:00 – Constructive Criticism and Practical Solutions

Description: Herz provides historical context on the Nelson Nash Institute, noting its evolution from promoting IBC to controlling its narrative, sometimes resembling a cult [1:03:05-1:06:41]. Kinsella challenges the Institute to reconsider its bullying tactics and adopt ethical IP practices, such as non-aggressive trademark enforcement [1:12:00-1:14:15]. He shares practical advice from his book Do Business Without Intellectual Property, advocating for minimal IP reliance and focusing on reputation and service quality [1:14:15-1:18:36].

Summary: The final segment offers constructive criticism of the Institute’s controlling approach, urges ethical trademark use,

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.

https://youtu.be/WxXFTUDYQ0I

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.

Related:

Abortion Correspondence with Doris Gordon, Libertarians For Life (1996) (June 14, 2023)

Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Libertarian Solution (Grok)

Walter Block, "Does Trespassing Require Human Action? Rejoinder to Kinsella and Armoutidis an Evictionism," MEST Journal (forthcoming 2025)

“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. 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)).

Related:

"How We Come to Own Ourselves," in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023), in an update noting: See Daniel J. Flynn, “Murray Rothbard’s Lost Letters on Ayn Rand,” J. Libertarian Stud. 29 (2) (2025): 35–50, p. 40: “He noted a split on the seemingly uncontroversial idea of making support of children compulsory for parents, which, despite Atlas Shrugged’s reputation as a kid-free zone, Rand endorsed.”

Block, “Does Trespassing Require Human Action? Rejoinder to Kinsella and Armoutidis an Evictionism”

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 in libertarian circles. This article will attempt to show when and why humans get rights by advancing a theory inspired and implied by Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “argumentation ethics”; it will then endeavor to “resolve” and present the consistent libertarian stance on the abortion issue.

and Oscar Grau, "On Argumentation Ethics, Human Nature, and Law," in A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, edited by Jörg Guido Hülsmann & Stephan Kinsella (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2024).

See also Benjamin Tucker on abortion: This is just the old adage "I brought you into this world, I can take you OUT" elevated as if it's serious high theory. Like Walter Block with his "libertarianism abhors unowned property" reasoning. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion:

19th-century individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker initially concluded that no one should interfere to prevent neglect of the child, although they could still repress a positive invasion. However, Tucker, having reconsidered his opinion, resolved that parental cruelty is of non-invasive character and therefore is not to be prohibited. Tucker's opinion is grounded on the fact that he viewed the child as the property of the mother while in the womb and until the time of their emancipation (at the age of being able to contract and provide for themselves) unless the mother had disposed of the fruit of her womb by contract. In the meantime, Tucker recognized the right of the mother to dispose of her property as she sees it fit. According to Tucker's logic, "the outsider who uses force upon the child invades, not the child, but its mother, and may be rightfully punished for doing so".[12][13]

Tucker is very confused here, but at least he was good on IP (even more impressive given that he, like Tucker, seemed to accept the flawed labor theory of property which usually leads people to favor IP).

https://youtu.be/v9bDRDD2wWU

Panel discussion:

https://youtu.be/vFCZLT4tMY4

My speech notes:

Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach

Stephan Kinsella

Property and Freedom Society

2024 Annual Meeting

Bodrum, Turkey

September 19–24, 2024

Alright, let’s have as much fun as we can with a topic like this.

Contentious issues among libertarians:

Anarchy vs. Minarchy

Forms of state: monarchy vs. democracy

Open borders vs. mass immigration

Intellectual Property (we are winning this one)

Israel vs. Gaza

Ukraine vs. Russia

Abortion: Pro-choice and Pro-Life

I’ve changed my own mind a bit on this issue, after becoming a parent: from pro-choice. to more sympathetic to pro-life arguments, and to my current decentralist view

Traditionally libertarians have tended to be pro-choice, including virtually all Objectivists, though there were always some minority pro-life voices (e.g. Doris Gordon of L4L).

In recent years many seem to be more conservative, and more friendly to religion, and many more opposed to abortion than in the past.

The LP removed its pro-choice plank in Reno in 2022 as part of the Mises Caucus takeover, the “Reno Reset,” arguing that the issue is not settled and each candidate should be able to adopt their own position on this issue.

On some issues it seems possible to make progress. Many libertarians come from conservatism, or sometimes leftism, moving at first towards libertarian minarchism and then eventually to libertarian anarchism.

I changed my mind on the IP issue and have managed to persuade a large number of people to adopt the anti-IP position.

Views change on the issue of open borders and immigration and on particular issues like Israel vs. Gaza and Russia v. Ukraine.

But it seems almost impossible for anyone to change someone else’s mind on the abortion issue.

The fact that this issue seems intractable, often rooted in deep lifestyle preferences or religious beliefs, is relevant, I think to how this issue is best solved in a political-legal sense.

See Loren E. Lomasky, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 91: “The intractability of the dispute … may itself be philosophically significant.”

There are the well-known arguments

Pro-choice

There is the modern, or feminist, argument: it’s my body.

Of course the response is that there is a baby inside which complicates the matter

For this reason even most pro-choice people do not not favor legality until birth

Ayn Rand: “abortion is a moral right-which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved.” (“Of Living Death,” The Objectivist, Oct. 1968, 6)

In Rand’s view, opposition to abortion arises from a failure to grasp both the context of rights and the imposition that child-bearing places on women. As she put it: “A piece of protoplasm has no rights-and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.”

So even Randians recognize difficulty in the later stages of pregnancy

Pro-life