KOL436 | Kelly Patrick Show: Taking Questions from Nonlibertarians

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 443. “Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach,” 2024 Annual Meeting, Property and Freedom Society, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 22, 2024). https://youtu.be/v9bDRDD2wWU Panel discussion: https://youtu.be/vFCZLT4tMY4 Notes below. 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 Then there is the religious-based pro-life argument As this is religious, it is not exactly rational since people of different faiths can have different beliefs about souls, life, rights, and so on Libertarian abortion arguments Pro-Life Doris Gordon of Libertarians for Life: Pro-life she was a neo-Randian and had a secular argument against abortion. However it ultimately was a cheap semantic argument about what it means to be “human”. It’s a simplistic argument, as all semantic arguments tend to be Doesn’t account for rights of non-humans, e.g.

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) Unedited transcript (from Youtube) below. https://youtu.be/x6ecMmBpGs8?si=veUW9EnXhwujEAo1 Notes: For further discussion of this topic, see: chapters 9–11, from Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2024; LFFS), namely "A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability," "Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith," and "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection" Re the "Zombicide" comments, see ch. 10, text at n.37 My paper, The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract (Papian Press Working Paper #1) KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery and Inalienability Other than Block and Nozick, Gerard Casey also seems to favor voluntary slavery: “Can You Own Yourself?“, Research Depository UCD Dublin (Dec. 2011) A few comments. African Slavery Walter favors voluntary slavery but not involuntary slavery;  this was one reason he sued the New York Times for defamation, since they claimed he supported slavery (if I recall correctly; 1, 2, 3). But how do we know that all the African slaves in antebellum America were involuntary slaves? Is it established that every African shipped to the US from Africa went against their will? What if they heard life was better in America, and they volunteered to go even knowing they would be enslaved. Wouldn't such a slavery contract be enforceable in Walter's view of slavery? Or take another example. Suppose Jones, owner of a plantation in Louisiana, owns a slave Toby, but he starts to feel bad about slavery and he manumits Toby, and tells him to leave. Toby says he has no money, no food, and he doesn't want to wander around in Louisiana where he might be attacked or enslaved again, and says he would prefer to just stay on Jones's plantation and work for him. Jones says well okay but only if you sell yourself to me and be my slave. So Toby sells himself to Jones. Wouldn't this be legitimate and enforceable, according to Walter's theory? Forced Sex with a Prostitute Walter says that if you sell yourself into slavery, then if you try to run away you are stealing the property of your owner. He is entitled to use force against you since you are disobeying him. Now around 52:13, Mathew asks Walter about my hypothetical about kissing a girl. I had explained that it's not assault/battery or aggression if you kiss a girl if she consents. If during dinner she promises to let you kiss her when you drop her off, and you do, it's also not consent, since her last communication set up a sort of standing presumption. As I write in ch. 9 of LFFS, Part III.C.1: If a girl promises a kiss at the end of the date and the boyfriend an hour later kisses her, she cannot claim it was nonconsensual. In effect, she communicated her consent, she set up a standing presumption that is reasonable to rely on—until and unless she changes her mind. If at the end of the date she announces she no longer wants a kiss, it is that consent that matters. It is always the most recent consent that matters since this is the best evidence for what was consented to. There is nothing in libertarianism that says people cannot change their minds. Walter then responds by saying that if you pay a prostitute $100 for sex and she backs out, you can't force her to have sex, as it would be rape, you can only get your money back. But suppose you pay her an extra $900 to induce her to agree that she cannot change her mind, then if you force her it's not rape (to which I respond, "Jesus!"). Of course it's easy to see this logic could also apply to a girl you are dating. If she agrees to have sex with her date and the end of the date and agrees that she "cannot change her...

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-

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 440. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella: Part IIb.  (Spotify) Shownotes: The Rational Egoist: Concluding the Intellectual Property Debate with Stephan Kinsella (Part 2 of 2) In this final episode of a two-part series, host Michael Liebowitz concludes his engaging debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney and author, on the moral and legal status of intellectual property. Building on the groundwork laid in the previous discussion, Michael and Kinsella delve further into the core arguments surrounding IP rights, examining their effects on creativity, innovation, and property law. The episode offers compelling insights into both sides of the debate, providing a thorough exploration of one of the most contested issues in legal and economic theory. Tune in for the conclusion of this thought-provoking exchange that challenges established viewpoints and offers fresh perspectives on intellectual property. https://youtu.be/mMa-Cbyq34w?si=_x1_q8VoeFuVJSvO

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 439. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella: Part IIa.  (Spotify) Michael will release the second half, PartIIb, later. Shownotes: The Rational Egoist: Resuming the Intellectual Property Debate with Stephan Kinsella (Part 1 of 2) In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz resumes his debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney and author, on the contentious issue of intellectual property. Picking up from their conversation a couple of weeks ago, Michael and Kinsella dive even deeper into the philosophical and legal arguments concerning IP rights. This is part one of a two-part series that explores the impact of intellectual property on innovation, individual rights, and economic systems. Join them for a rigorous exchange of ideas that challenges conventional thinking and sets the stage for the next episode's continuation. Michael Leibowitz, host of The Rational Egoist podcast, is a philosopher and political activist who draws inspiration from Ayn Rand’s philosophy, advocating for reason, rational self-interest, and individualism. His journey from a 25-year prison sentence to a prominent voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities highlights the transformative impact of embracing these principles. Leibowitz actively participates in political debates and produces content aimed at promoting individual rights and freedoms. He is the co-author of “Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime” and “View from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Liberty,” which explore societal issues and his personal evolution through Rand’s teachings. https://youtu.be/8NfUVzLe4gI?si=OY3RCZ9ekYGEqcYU

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 437. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella. We focused here mostly on property rights and other precursor concepts. We plan to have a followup discussion to get into the nitty gritty of the application of these more basic concepts and principles to the topic of IP. (Spotify) Shownotes: In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz engages in a thought-provoking discussion and debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian writer and patent attorney, on the moral status of intellectual property. The complexity of the issue sparks a deep dive into the ethical and legal dimensions of IP rights, leading to a conversation so rich that it had to be continued in a future episode. Kinsella, known for his critical views on intellectual property, challenges conventional notions, while Michael offers his own perspective. This episode promises to be a captivating exploration of one of the most debated topics in the intersection of law, philosophy, and economics. Tune in for a rigorous and intellectually stimulating debate that leaves no stone unturned. https://youtu.be/-Xc3nW2rVX8?si=qUCLG--2U2SJRdtU

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 436. I was interviewed today by Kelly Patrick of the Kelly Patrick Show ep. 777. I fielded questions from his The Kelly Patrick Show Political Chat facebook group, mostly questions from nonlibertarians or people critical of libertarianism. We discussed the prospects of liberty, activism, why people are not persuaded by libertarian arguments, the prospects of the Libertarian Party, intellectual property, anarchism, and so on.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 435. I was interviewed by Daniel Morena Vitón and Luis Abram for a Spanish libertarian podcast, as he initially told me: "The interview is about some legal questions of libertarianism, for a new libertarian association in Spain founded by Jesús Huerta de Soto, the 'Austrian Libertarian Association.'" I believe there were technical problems with the recording of the first question or two, so I was asked to repeat my answer near the end; sure how they ended stitching this together or editing this. From their shownotes (Google autotranslate): Stephan Kinsella will give the keys regarding various topics from intellectual issues that concern libertarianism such as intellectual property and the challenges that it entails, as well as more current topics such as libertarians in politics or the current libertarian parties that the political landscape houses. https://youtu.be/L78827aNHR0?si=g3rv2hkfcDJnt79m

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 434. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Exploring The Objectivist Ethics with Stephan Kinsella. (Spotify) https://youtu.be/Dzv1euK5XKg?si=vcvjrh3XZ9sCRx9Y Join host Michael Liebowitz for a thought-provoking episode of The Rational Egoist as he engages in a stimulating discussion with Stephan Kinsella, a prominent libertarian writer and patent attorney, on The Objectivist Ethics. In this enlightening conversation, Michael and Stephan delve into the foundational principles of Objectivism, exploring its ethical framework, implications for individual freedom, and relevance in contemporary society. Drawing on his expertise in libertarian legal theory and intellectual property law, Stephan Kinsella offers valuable insights into The Objectivist Ethics, as formulated by philosopher Ayn Rand. He provides a comprehensive overview of Rand's philosophical system, highlighting its emphasis on reason, individualism, and rational self-interest as the basis for moral conduct. Listeners will gain a deeper understanding of The Objectivist Ethics, as Michael and Stephan explore its implications for issues such as property rights, personal autonomy, and the pursuit of happiness. They discuss the role of rational self-interest in fostering human flourishing and examine the ethical principles that underpin a free and just society. This episode serves as a platform for intellectual inquiry and philosophical exploration, as Michael and Stephan engage in a rigorous examination of Objectivist ethics and its implications for human behavior and social organization. Through reasoned discourse and critical analysis, they offer listeners valuable insights into the moral foundations of liberty and the pursuit of individual well-being. Tune in to The Rational Egoist for an enlightening conversation with Stephan Kinsella as we explore The Objectivist Ethics. Whether you're a student of philosophy, a curious thinker, or someone seeking to deepen your understanding of ethical principles, this episode promises to inform, inspire, and provoke thoughtful reflection on the nature of human morality and the pursuit of a rational life.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 433. This is my appearance on The Big Questions with Big John. From his shownotes: Libertarian Stephan Kinsella shares his background as an engineer turned lawyer. A conversation on IP rights delves into arguments against patents & copyrights. https://youtu.be/SpcQUIMsj5k?si=zEnZZXcEM3IY5UL-