KOL484 | Praxeology, Property Rights & Bitcoin: Bitcoin Infinity Show #192, with Knut Svanholm

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 484. Praxeology, Property Rights & Bitcoin with Stephan Kinsella | Bitcoin Infinity Show #192. With Knut Svanholm. Recorded Jan. 20, 2026. My shownotes and transcript below. Knut's Shownotes: Stephan Kinsella joins the Bitcoin Infinity Show to talk about why praxeology is the hardest science in economics, how Austrian theory explains Bitcoin's unique monetary properties, and whether you can truly own a Bitcoin or merely act as if you do. The conversation covers the foundations of property rights and natural law, the subjective nature of fungibility, and what a hyperbitcoinized future might actually look like. Kinsella and Knut also explore why intellectual property restrictions threaten the very knowledge accumulation that makes humanity richer over time. https://youtu.be/lN9p6ZjCHMY?si=zKXfeG8aqe2eoGfy Segments: 00:00 Welcoming Stephan Kinsella 01:19 Bitcoin and Austrian Economics 05:51 The Importance of Praxeology 11:45 Understanding Human Action and Scarcity 20:50 Hoppe, Mises, Rand, Rothbard 27:29 Means and Ends 35:35 Natural Law and the Non-Aggression Principle 51:31 Crime and Punishment 59:44 The Bitcoin of It All 01:15:46 Bitcoin and the Austrian Perspective 01:21:39 Understanding Bitcoin's Scarcity and Value 01:30:19 Bitcoin and Interest Rates 01:39:31 Visions of the Future 01:46:59 The Future of Bitcoin and Society 01:51:26 Hyperbitcoinization 01:58:11 Wrapping Up Shownotes (Grok) Here are the complete shownotes for the podcast episode, structured with topical headings exactly as they appear in the original shownotes you provided, plus the cleaned-up details from the transcript (speakers, key points, approximate timestamps, and a concise summary of each segment for clarity). Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 484 Praxeology, Property Rights & Bitcoin with Stephan Kinsella | Bitcoin Infinity Show #192 With Knut Svanholm Recorded: January 20, 2026 Shownotes Stephan Kinsella joins Knut Svanholm on the Bitcoin Infinity Show to discuss why praxeology is the hardest and most rigorous science in economics, how Austrian theory illuminates Bitcoin's unique monetary properties, and whether one can truly "own" a Bitcoin or merely act as if they do. The conversation explores foundational property rights and natural law, the subjective nature of fungibility, visions of a hyperbitcoinized future, and why intellectual property restrictions hinder the knowledge accumulation that drives human prosperity. Segments 00:00 Welcoming Stephan Kinsella Knut introduces Stephan, mentions first seeing him on Robert Breedlove's show discussing IP, shares his own journey into Misesian thought via Bitcoin, and notes writing a beginner's book on praxeology to connect with Mises Institute people. 01:19 Bitcoin and Austrian Economics Discussion of how most enter Austrian economics via libertarianism, but a subset discovers libertarianism/Austrianism through Bitcoin. Stephan shares his Swedish freedom-oriented background and how Bitcoin finally pushed him into deep Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe study. They critique why many Bitcoiners dismiss praxeology as "optional" and explore the corruption of economics into pseudoscience (positivism, econometrics) over the last 70 years, leading to widespread distrust. 05:51 The Importance of Praxeology Stephan explains praxeology as the systematic study of the logic of human action in scarcity—essential because economics is unavoidable for understanding exchange and trade. He confesses early skepticism toward praxeology/epistemology as unnecessary jargon but later appreciated Mises's need for precise terms (praxeology, catallactics). Critiques modern cranks who invent excessive terminology and praises Mises's restraint. 11:45 Understanding Human Action and Scarcity Core of praxeology: purposeful action in scarcity requires purpose + knowledge + scarce means under control. All economic categories (profit/loss, opportunity cost, success/failure) are logically implied in action. Austrian economics unpacks this rationally; modern economics errs by forcing empirical/positivist methods (hypothesize-test-falsify) onto human action, which is misguided. Knut shares his school experience: hard sciences were about understanding, social sciences about memorization and unexamined "why"—praxeology felt like the true hard science for social phenomena. 20:50 Hoppe, Mises, Rand, Rothbard Hoppe's major contribution: bolstering Mises against Randian/Objectivist criticism of Kantian influence. Explains Randian aversion to Kant (skeptical interpretations), Mises's realist use of limited Kantian vocabulary (a priori categories), and how subjectivism in Austrian economics means value tied to purposeful action—not relativism. Hoppe shows praxeology bridges subjective experience and objective causal reality. Rothbard as Aristotelian/Thomist hybrid comfortable with Mises. 27:29 Means and Ends Exploration of hybrid subjective-objective nature of means and ends (rain dance example: subjectively believed, objectively ineffective). Hoppe on no intrinsic characteristics of goods—value depends on actor's valuation (links to Bitcoin fungibility debate: fungibility is subjective; nothing is perfectly fungible, but we treat units as homogeneous). Discussion of acting to shape future universes, competition, and skepticism of quantum multiverse ideas. 35:35 Natural Law and the Non-Aggression Principle Foundations of natural law/NAP: emerge from social living, empathy, division of labor, but scarcity creates conflict potential. Possession = factual control; ownership/rights = normative support justifying force against violators. Law guides when force is justified to stop aggression. Core private law rules: self-ownership, homesteading, contract. Psychopaths treated as technical problems (like lions)—not reasoned with if unresponsive. Hoppe's ATM robber anecdote illustrates occasional moral persuasion vs. force. 51:31 Crime and Punishment Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty: proportional punishment (up to double damage theoretically acceptable, but rarely applied). Stephan clarifies proportionality is required but not mechanical—subjective factors, doubt favors victim, juries/context needed. No formula fits every case; practical justice requires flexibility, burdens of proof, custom. Complexity of unseen harms (e.g., ongoing theft like taxes worse than one-time). Lysander Spooner highwayman analogy. 59:44 The Bitcoin of It All Knut's insight: Bitcoin scarcity via private key secret—control by keeping knowledge hidden, not true "ownership" of data (IP angle). One acts as if owning due to improbability of key compromise or protocol change. Stephan agrees: money only needs to be "good enough"; Bitcoin ~96% good money (better than gold/fiat flaws). Control via key better than physical possession—almost perfectly enforced "law." Gun-to-head scenario: attacker can't know total holdings. 1:15:46 Bitcoin and the Austrian Perspective Bitcoin as abstract ledger entry valued subjectively. Network effects + first-mover advantage. Regression theorem not violated—initial use value collectible (pizza transaction). Human action behind nodes/miners—anti-lie machine making cheating costlier than following. Tendency toward one money due to barter problems; Bitcoin's crypto advantages + longest chain/time make it dominant. 1:21:39 Understanding Bitcoin's Scarcity and Value Knut's "oneshot principle": absolute scarcity + decentralization was a discovery; replicating resistance to replication knowingly is pointless. Bitcoin = "chess" of money—network lock-in. Forks (Cash/SV) fail because changes (e.g., larger blocks) increase node costs → faster centralization. Plan B stock-to-flow model critiqued as subjective value makes predictions unreliable; Bitcoin price can rise indefinitely with productivity ("everything / 21M"). 1:30:19 Bitcoin and Interest Rates Saifedean Ammous's storage-cost theory: in gold standard, very low interest rates could make lending (even negative) preferable to holding due to storage costs. Stephan: plausible for gold (physical costs/risks), but Bitcoin holding cost near-zero → likely always positive interest. In Bitcoin world, artificial low rates vanish; natural rates possibly higher, lower time preference, less borrowing for consumption, more saving/investing. 1:39:31 Visions of the Future Knut: scaling via fewer transactions (bundling, trust, lifetime subs), less consumerism, quality over quantity, less materialism. Expensive to be poor in fiat; Bitcoin incentivizes trust/family-like exchange. Lightning/sub-satoshis handle divisibility—no need for protocol decimal changes. Off-chain trust reduces on-chain load. 1:46:59 The Future of Bitcoin and Society Post-plateau: diversification needed (can't hold 100% money due to risk). Productivity gains (3–15%+ in freer Bitcoin economy) still incentivize hodling/saving. Ever-decreasing supply (losses, burning) + rising demand → perpetual upward pressure. Combined with AI/robotics → unimaginable abundance if survived. 1:51:26 Hyperbitcoinization Gradual like English becoming Europe's second language—younger generations adopt naturally. Cycles for decades, then up forever until fiat dies. Reduces war funding (fiat enables). Hope rational; logic-driven, not activism-dependent. White Pill parallel: authoritarianism collapses under own weight. Long-term optimism for human future. 1:58:11 Wrapping Up Stephan promotes his IP work, libertarian book, upcoming Rothbard 100 essays (March 2 release), Universal Principles of Liberty project, Property and Freedom Society Bodrum meeting (September). Bitcoin conference mentions (BTC Prague, El Salvador, potential Helsinki BTC Hell). Mutual appreciation, plans to meet, end with thanks. Let me know if you'd like any section expanded, condensed, or additional details (e.g., key quotes per segment).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 483. I delivered the following lecture yesterday: “The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property,” Loyola Economics Club and Louisiana Mu chapter of Omicron Delta Epsilon, Loyola University—New Orleans, Miller Hall (12:30 pm–1:45 pm, Feb. 24, 2026). Hosts were the aforementioned Econ club and econ honor society, as well as Walter Block and Leo Krasnozhon. (( Leo Krasnozhon, “Walter Block on Externality, Public Goods, and Voluntary Government“ (pp. 391–399). )) Audio for the Q&A portion was poor due to some technical mishaps, but has been boosted as much as possible. Slides streamed below. https://youtu.be/rrFHYJ53C8g Some pix:

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 482. Audio version of “A Tour Through Walter Block’s Oeuvre,” in Walter Block – Anarcho-Capitalist Austro-Libertarian, Elvira Nica & Gheorghe H. Popescu, eds. (Addleton Academic Publishers, 2025). Thanks to George Besada. Made this audio version:https://t.co/dxc81hv00Z — Jorge Besada (@hayekian) February 19, 2026 https://rumble.com/v75zpme-a-tour-through-walter-blocks-oeuvre.-by-stephan-kinsella..html

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 481. This is my appearance on Adam Haman’s podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack), a special 200th Episode Livestream Celebration! It features regular hosts Adam Haman and Tyrone, and other previous guests (recorded Feb. 7, 2026; official episode: Replay of 200th Episode Livestream Celebration! | Hn 200). I and some other previous guests appeared. (( KOL478 | Haman Nature Hn 185: The Universal Principles of Liberty KOL469 | Haman Nature Hn 149: Tabarrok on Patents, Price Controls, and Drug Reimportation KOL461 | Haman Nature Hn 119: Atheism, Objectivism & Artificial Intelligence KOL456 | Haman Nature Hn 109: Philosophy, Rights, Libertarian and Legal Careers KOL432 | Haman Nature 0027: School Choice “Debate” KOL425 | Haman Nature Ep. 4: Stephan Kinsella dismantles “intellectual” property KOL423 | Haman Nature Ep. 2: Getting Argumentative )) Shownotes and transcript below. Inspired by Jeffrey Tucker, I decided to dress up. Adam's shownotes: This is a replay of the Feb. 7th, 2026 YouTube livestream of the Haman Nature 200th episode celebration event with enhanced audio and edited for a more enjoyable viewing experience. Adam Haman and Tyrone the Porcupine Hobo were proud to be joined by Scott Horton, Stephan Kinsella, Doc Dixon, Brian O'Leary, Domenic Scarcella, Mark Maresca, Mark Puls, and Jason Lawler. Plus, fun, games, the premier of a Haman Nature Records music video, and much more! Enjoy! 00:00 -- Intro. Technology is hard, we have a very rough start, but perseverance pays off! 01:20 -- Banter and brilliance from our special guests on the situation in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 35:55 -- Debuting our new game: A Warmonger Says What? 48:08 -- Another guest joins the show! 54:35 -- Debut of "The Devil is a Democrat" music video by Haman Nature Records! 1:02:55 -- Banter and brilliance from our special guests on the recent Epstein files dump. 1:32:30 -- Adam makes a big podcasting "reveal"! Also, introducing our brand new series: "It's Always Anarchy in Philadelphia!", which leads into a brief discussion of economics -- which is the point! 1:53:06 -- Some closing banter, thoughts, comments, and testimonials. Plus, what's going on with Bitcoin, gold, and silver prices? Are these assets, or could they be money in the future? 2:08:17 -- Outro. Thanks for watching Haman Nature, and here's to another 200 episodes! Shownotes (Grok) Opening & Technical Difficulties [3:02 – ~8:42] Hosts Adam Haymon and Tyrone struggle with StreamYard/YouTube live setup. Multiple failed starts, audio muting issues, and a full restart after realizing the stream isn't public. Guests (including Stephan Kinsella and Mark Maresca) briefly appear during troubleshooting. Take Two – Official Welcome & Guest Introductions [~8:42 – ~17:00] Successful restart. Adam and Tyrone celebrate episode 200 (take two). Guests introduced: Stephan Kinsella (dressed in full “libertard” regalia with Mises hat and pipe), Scott Horton, Mark Maresca (White Pill Box), Brian O'Leary (Natural Order podcast co-host), and later arrivals. Banter about episode counts, outfits, technical woes, and congratulations. Minneapolis / ICE Raids / Immigration Discussion [~17:00 – ~38:00] Tyrone (Minneapolis resident) gives local perspective on recent ICE incidents. Guests share views: Mark Maresca → white-pill take on accelerating public skepticism Scott Horton → partisanship, new footage reinforcing biases, panic in police shootings Stefan Kinsella → due process, nullification, decentralization, peaceful alternatives to force Brian O'Leary → economic incentives over coercion Heavy focus on Minneapolis events, state nullification, federal overreach, and libertarian principles. Viewer Comments, Guest Rotations & Banter [~38:00 – ~1:00:00] Reading sarcastic and positive YouTube comments from past episodes. Guests come and go (Scott Horton exits, Mark Polles / “Mark P” joins, Jason from If By Whiskey joins). More congratulations, plugs for guests’ shows/Substacks, merch mentions (shop.humanature.com), and light roasting. Game Segment: “A Warmonger Says What?” [~47:00 – ~1:00:00] World premiere game. Panel (Stefan, Mark M, Mark Mo, Brian) guesses who said infamous political quotes. Chat players compete for $25 Human Nature merch gift cards. Questions cover MTG, Trump/Biden gaffes, Rick Perry, Bernie/Obama/Hillary, etc. Winners announced later. Break, Ads & Music Video World Premiere [~1:00:00 – ~1:16:00] Short break with organic ads (Scott Horton Academy, Swan Brothers merch). World premiere of Human Nature Records parody music video: “The Devil is a Republican” (Grok-rewritten Tom MacDonald-style lyrics set to music by Tyrone). Full performance played. New Segment Debut: “It’s Always Anarchy in Philadelphia” [~1:56:00 – ~2:19:00] Brand new recurring segment announced. Uses clips from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia to explain Austrian/Misesian economic concepts. First clip: Season episode discussing couch rental interest, inflation, wages, and “nut.” Stefan Kinsella gives detailed breakdown: time preference, interest rates, monetary vs. price inflation, Fed manipulation, sound money, Bitcoin vs. gold, fractional reserve debates, free banking vs. Rothbardian views. Closing Thanks, Final Comments & Sign-off [~2:19:00 – 2:48:00] Guests give on-camera praise for the show (Mark Maresca, Brian O’Leary, Mark Polles, Dominic Scarcella, Stefan Kinsella). Brief Bitcoin/gold/silver/fiat collapse discussion. Final plugs, merch reminder, “The Devil is a Republican” video tease. Emotional thanks to guests and audience for 200 episodes. Ends with signature “Heat” send-off. Total runtime ≈ 2 hours 45 minutes (including breaks and music video). Episode highlights: technical comedy, deep libertarian discussion, game debut, parody music video premiere, and first episode of the new economics-through-pop-culture segment. Transcript (youtube; Grok assist) Human Nature – 200th Episode Celebration (Full Compiled Corrected Transcript – From Beginning to End) Spelling errors corrected, filler words like "uh" or "um" removed (without paraphrasing or altering meaning/structure), occasional topical descriptive headers added, speaker names when identifiable (or "[Unknown Speaker]" if not), timestamps after each header and speaker change. Names standardized: "Human Nature" / "Adam Haman" / "Stephan Kinsella". [3:02 – Opening Title & Initial Technical Chaos] Intro Voiceover Human Nature, a journey in search of a peaceful and prosperous society with human nature as a guide. Led by your host Adam Haman. [3:24] Adam Haman Hello. Isn't technology just hilarious? I guess so. [3:29] Tyrone You got big plans for your 200th episode celebration and then all of a sudden nothing works. [3:36] Adam Haman I still don't see it on my YouTube, but if you see it on yours, I believe somebody is seeing it somewhere. [3:42] Tyrone Yes, somebody is seeing it somewhere. Well, I guess it's just going to be you and me. [3:48] Adam Haman This is kind of how the last one was. Well, hey, we made it. Congratulations, sir. Even if nobody's seeing this, I don't know. [4:06] Tyrone We do have a couple of guests waiting in the waiting room. Maybe they know. But first, we allow some of these bozos on to come celebrate with us. Congratulations, sir. It's number 200. I didn't know if we would make it. Cheers, my friend. [4:23] Adam Haman When we started this little project two years ago, can you believe that? [4:29] Tyrone It's crazy. Oh, you're getting dinged. Ding-donged. Well, welcome everybody to the fantastic, fabulous, super califragilistic 200th episode of Human Nature. [4:41] Adam Haman Oh, wait. I can get my sound effects going. Yeah, I don't think we're live, my friend. [4:47] Tyrone Yeah, I don't think we are either. [4:53] Adam Haman Oh, this is just so silly. So Stefan and Mark, if you can hear us, apologies. Adam's a dumb [ __ ] when it comes to technology. [5:07] Tyrone Should we pop these fellas on here and just apologize to him? I mean, it's 12:12. Should we just cancel this whole nonsense? [5:13] Adam Haman No. Stefan Kinsella. [5:19] Stephan Kinsella Hi, Mark. [5:19] Mark Maresca Mark. Hey, guys. What's up? Congratulations, Adam. [5:25] Adam Haman Thank you. Hold it. We might have to redo this whole thing. [5:25] Tyrone Yeah, we're almost certainly going to have to redo this whole thing. I could show you. My YouTube studio thinks that we have a live stream. [5:38] Adam Haman It thinks it's happening. [5:48] Tyrone Oh, yeah. It thinks we've been going for 5 minutes, but nobody else thinks this. [5:57] Adam Haman Well, that's interesting. [5:57] Tyrone Mr. Kinsella, I know we've never met, but nice to meet you virtually, sir. I'm going to kiss your ass here in a second, but I kind of wanted to do it when we're actually going, so just pretend we've never seen each other five minutes prior to this. But I like the hat and the pipe. Very deerstalker. I'll start calling you Watson or something. [6:16] Stephan Kinsella Yeah, that is about the pipe. You look amazing. [6:22] Tyrone Oh, I can't hear you though. Are you muted? Who's muted, my friend? [6:30] Mark Maresca No, nobody's muted, but I can't hear Mark either. Mark, say something. [6:30] Mark Maresca Talking talking. [6:36] Tyrone Okay, Stephan, I can't. You are I can't hear stuff now. [6:43] Adam Haman Well, maybe nothing works. Maybe that's the Streamyard let you pick the mic and Oh, how about now? How about now? [6:51] Stephan Kinsella Yeah. Yeah, you're correct. How about now? My mic was muted. My mic, my Yeti was muted. [6:57] Tyrone I don't see anything on YouTube Studio, Adam, saying anything's going [7:03] Adam Haman Well, mine does. [7:03] Tyrone Really? Where are you? 7 seconds.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 480. This is my talk at the Liberland Constitution Christmas Party Prague 2025, Dec. 19, 2025, based on the article below, which will be included in the book based on the proceedings, First Constitutional Convention of the Free Republic of Liberland, Vít Jedlička, ed. (Dec. 19, 2025; forthcoming). The transcript is also below. Pictures of the event may be be found at Prague 2025: Liberland Constitution Celebration: Photos; also Hoppe, Fusillo, Kinsella Speak at Liberland Constitution Celebration, and Vit's post at Facebook and my facebook post. This audio is from my iphone; video and better audio, and that of other talks, will be released in due course. Related: First Constitutional Convention of the Free Republic of Liberland, Vít Jedlička, ed. (Dec. 19, 2025; forthcoming) (google docs version) Liberland press release Liberland Prepares for a Historic Christmas Celebration and Constitutional Milestone Prague 2025: Liberland Constitution Celebration: Photos Liberland Constitution Christmas Party Prague 2025 Hoppe, Fusillo, Kinsella Speak at Liberland Constitution Celebration Fusillo on the Universal Principles of Liberty and Liberland KOL478 | Haman Nature Hn 185: The Universal Principles of Liberty KOL474 | Where The Common Law Goes Wrong (PFS 2025) Libertarian Nation and Related Projects KOL473 | The Universal Principles of Liberty, with Mark Maresca of The White Pillbox Announcing the Universal Principles of Liberty As noted in Liberland Constitution Christmas Party Prague 2025, despite my frequent criticisms of libertarian activists and activism over the years, and despite my preference for the theoretical side of things, I've been involved in various activist projects for over the years, including helping to draft early versions of the Liberland Constitution. (( The Voluntaryist Constitution. )) I've met Liberland's President, Vít Jedlička, and previous meetings of the Property and Freedom Society. At this year's PFS meeting, he invited me, Alessandro Fusillo, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe to the Liberland meeting in Prague this December. We did attend. It was a marvelous event. Related: My Failed Libertarian Speaking Hiatus; Memories of Mises Institute and Other Events, 1988–20192025 KOL345 | Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PorcFest 2021) KOL359 | State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PFS 2021) The Liberland Constitution and Libertarian Principles Stephan Kinsella[*] Remarks prepared for the Liberland Christmas Party and Constitutional Reading, Prague, Dec. 19, 2025 [Published as Stephan Kinsella, "The Liberland Constitution and Libertarian Principles," Libertarian Alliance (UK) (26 December, 2025)]   I would like to discuss the issue of “constitutions” and states, and their relation to human freedom. I. Man, Action, and Freedom A. Acting Man A free society has long been the aspiration and dream of liberals of all types, including modern libertarians.[2] What exactly is freedom? To understand this we must understand the nature of human action in the world. Man finds himself in a world of scarcity and hardship, where nothing is guaranteed to him—neither food, nor shelter, nor safety, nor survival. Acting man is aware of his present state and the world around him, of the receding past, and the coming future. He lives in the present, always moving from the immediate past into the coming future. He constantly faces uneasiness in his present condition and about the future anticipates is coming. He is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, as implied by the existence of scarcity and uneasiness, and yet he can act: he can acquire knowledge: he can learn what ends are possible and what scarce means (resources) can cause things to happen. He can use his body, which he directly controls, and he can acquire and possess and use resources in the world by grappling with them using his body, to make things happen—to give rise to a different future than the one he foresees will arrive without his intervention.[3] Knowledge about the world—about causal laws, recipes, facts about the world and his environment, about possible ends he could choose and possible means he could employ—and the availability and employment of causally efficacious resources together make successful human action possible.[4] It makes possible the achievement of ends and the alleviation of felt uneasiness. By using one’s mind and body it is possible to succeed, to achieve what Mises would term psychic proft.[5] B. Acting Man in Isolation For Crusoe on his island what concerns acting man is causal and technical knowledge, and knowledge about contingent facts in his world—and the availability of means of action. For him he may face wild animals, injury, lightning and storms and drought and disease, and any number of challenges, but the concept of freedom does not arise. There is only successful action, or profit, and life; and loss and failure, and death. C. Acting Man in Society With the presence of other people man, the social animal, can benefit from the comforts of society, from collective cooperation, from intercourse and trade, from the division and specialization of labor. But there is also the possibility of violent conflict over the use of the scarce means of action that are essential for successful human action. Other people are a potential benefit but also a potential threat. Perhaps because men are social animals have some empathy for others, and perhaps because they understand that violence is not productive, they prefer peaceful and productive use of resources, trade, and cooperation to violence, conflict, and strife.[6] Thus there tends to emerge in society the institution of property rights: widespread social respect for and mutual recognition of property rights rooted in original appropriation and contractual title transfer.[7] Unfortunately, this tends to give rise to an agency—the state—that claims the right to tax and to ultimate decision-making and law-making. As Hoppe notes, Let me begin with the definition of a state. What must an agent be able to do to qualify as a state? This agent must be able to insist that all conflicts among the inhabitants of a given territory be brought to him for ultimate decision-making or be subject to his final review. In particular, this agent must be able to insist that all conflicts involving himself be adjudicated by him or his agent. And implied in the power to exclude all others from acting as ultimate judge, as the second defining characteristic of a state, is the agent’s power to tax: to unilaterally determine the price that justice seekers must pay for his services. Based on this definition of a state, it is easy to understand why a desire to control a state might exist. For whoever is a monopolist of final arbitration within a given territory can make laws. And he who can legislate can also tax. Surely, this is an enviable position.[8] The purpose of property rights, of justice, is to permit men to use their own bodies and peacefully acquired (meaning: acquired by original appropriation, which violates no one’s rights as the resource is unowned; or by consensual contractual transfer from a previous owner, which also violates no one’s rights as the owner consents to the transfer) scarce means without conflict from others. It is so that men are free to use their own bodies or resources without interference from others. II. Freedom in Society Thus terms like freedom and liberty denote a state of affairs where acting man is free to use his body and other scarce resources in the world without physical interference by others—without conflict. It refers to a world where men are free from interference by private trespassers and also free from institutionalized interference by a state. Freedom and liberty just mean the absence of aggression with private property rights. Ideally, a free society means having either no state at all or a minimal state (minarchy) restricted to preventing aggression defined in terms of property rights,[9] and in a society with a largely libertarian ethos and minimal private crime. In such a society there is widespread liberty because there is little private crime and little to no institutionalize crime. A. Freedom and State Aggression But we live in a world governed by non-minimal states. They control most habitable territory on the earth. They compel membership and payment of taxes and monopolize their services, outlawing competitors. By legislative decree, these states prohibit not only acts that are malum in se but acts that are merely malum prohibitum. Although the justification for the agency that polices crime is to reduce aggression by private trespassers, with the state there is more private crime than there would be otherwise, because states are necessarily inefficient an also because they criminalize non-criminal actions.[10] All states are, in fact, criminal (and even minimal states would be criminal, even if they managed to ever emerge); all states engage in institutionalized aggression against private property rights. As Hoppe notes: socialism, by no means an invention of nineteenth century Marxism but much older, must be conceptualized as an institutionalized interference with or aggression against private property and private property claims. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a social system based on the explicit recognition of private property and of nonaggressive, contractual exchanges between private property owners. Implied in this remark, as will become clear in the course of this treatise, is the belief that there must then exist varying types and degrees of socialism and capitalism, i.e., varying degrees to which private property rights are respected or ignored. Societies are not simply capitalist or socialist. Indeed,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 479. Libertarian Nicholas Sinard asked me to field some questions about the referenced issues, so we did so. (Recorded Dec. 10, 2025.) https://youtu.be/DlbDlmuUPW0 Regarding our discussion of my previous comments about the definition of rights, and what rights are justified. As a definitional matter, a legal right is a legally enforceable claim to the exclusive use of a resource. As to what rights libertarians think are justified, I have discussed the idea that the only rights that are legitimate or just are those that the assertion of which cannot be coherently criticized. The reason is rooted in the logic of argumentation ethics and my estoppel defense of rights, e.g. society may justly punish those who have initiated force, in a manner proportionate to their initiation of force and to the consequences thereof, because they cannot coherently object to such punishment") Stephan Kinsella, "A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights," in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023). See also chapters 6. Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights, 7. Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan, and 22. The Undeniable Morality of Capitalism, et pass.; and other writing such as KOL451 | Debating the Nature of Rights on The Rational Egoist (Michael Liebowitz) (from the transcript): [12:25–19:47] I think when people say that I have a right to X what they’re really saying is if "I were to use force to defend my claim to this space" I can’t be coherently criticized. In other words, my proposed use of force to defend this space, is just, is justified. Which is why it ties into what laws are justified. Because a law is just a social recognition, by your society—your local neighbors, the legal system—that they recognize your claim, and they’re willing to endorse or support your use of force to defend yourself. So ultimately when we say there’s a right, what we’re saying is that if the legal system uses force to defend your claimed right, that use of force itself is justified. So this is a complicated way of saying what libertarians often say,  something like: it’s either ballots or bullets. It always comes down to physical force in the end. So when you have a law, what you’re saying is that the legal principle that we’re that proposing—like defending my house, or my body from rape or murder—we’re saying that if you were to use force to defend yourself, or if the legal system would do so in your name, then that would not be unjustified. And I think that’s ultimately the claim. So what you’re saying is ... the reason I call it a metanorm (( Rights as Metanorms; Rights and Morals as Intersecting Sets Not as Subset of Morals. )) is because ... Well, I distinguish between morality, and the justice of the legal system. So for example—and I think maybe Rand might agree with me on this, I’m not sure (( See, e.g, these tweets by Objectivist Michael Liebowitz, admitting that in some cases it might not only be moral to violate a right but immoral not to: 1, 2 ("Suppose a guy is driving with his son, and someone shoots up his car, badly wounding the son and taking out the tires. There is no one around, and he needs to get his son to a hospital. He sees an unattended parked car and steals it, getting his son the help he needs. That would be both virtuous and a crime."), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ("The person who wouldn’t steal a dollar to prevent his children from being tortured is the person who should face harsh moral judgment."), 8.  ))—but a simplistic view of morality, which most libertarians might have—and I don’t mean to be critical by saying simplistic, because it’s an attempt to distinguish between...  so most people would say that "you shouldn’t do drugs" and therefore they’re not opposed to a law outlawing drugs, because to their simplistic linear mind, if it’s immoral, it should be made illegal. But if you have a kind of a more nuanced view of things, you understand that, well just because something is immoral, doesn’t mean it should be illegal. That’s the libertarian view—its like, okay, doing drugs, being a  drug addict might be immoral, it might be harmful to your life, but you’re not violating someone’s rights. So the government [the state] is not justified in outlawing it. So that’s like a second level. So when you explain that to your normy person, then you might say, well that’s because morality, or that’s because rights violations are a subset of morality. So that’s kind of a first approximation about how you explain to people why everything that’s not that’s immoral should not be illegal. It’s because a rights violation should be illegal, but that’s only a subset of immorality. But when you put it that way, the assumption is that every rights violation is immoral although not everything that’s immoral is a rights violation right. And my personal view that I’ve I’ve come to adopt over the years is that's that’s actually slightly incorrect. In other words it it’s incorrect to say that everything that’s a rights violation is necessarily immoral. And the reason is because I view rights as a metanorm. This is the view as a human being, living in society, who wants to have a moral view of matters and the way human Society should operate, what law would I favor as a justified law? So I would say that we should have a law that says you can’t steal from people. But what that means is that it’s justified if the legal system uses force to stop crime, or to stop theft. It’s justified. Which which means that if someone is caught being a thief or a rapist or a murderer and they’re punished or dealt with in a certain way, that response by the legal system, or by the victim using the legal system as its proxy—you can’t criticize that itself an immoral action; it’s justified. So to my mind the ultimate purpose of law, and to think about this, is to think about what’s justified. But it doesn’t mean it doesn’t mean that every rights violation is necessarily immoral. And again, it’s because when you classify the legal system’s response to a crime as justified, what you’re saying is, it doesn’t violate the aggressor's rights if force is used against him. But it doesn’t necessarily imply that what he did was immoral. So this is why my view is that we have to view rights violations not as a proper subset of immorality, but as its own set which is mostly overlapping with immorality. So I would say that 99% of all rights violations are actually immoral, just like I would say that it’s immoral to be a dishonest person in general but I don’t think that it’s logically necessarily true. And the reason is because the purpose of morality is to guide man’s conduct in his everyday affairs, but the purpose of political ethics is to tell us which legal system is justified. So that morm is aimed at determining which laws are just; it’s not aimed at telling us how we should act on a day-to-day basis. So given a legal system,  which I think is a just legal system—let’s say we have a legal system where which outlaws murder and theft and extortion and rape and robbery and all this kind of stuff—that doesn’t necessarily mean that I am always immoral if I choose to violate someone’s rights in that system. It probably is in most cases,  but I’m not sure it's logically the same thing. [Then the example of someone in the woods breaking into a cabin to save their baby's life.] Shownotes (Grok) Show Notes: Stephan Kinsella & Nicholas Sinard on Co-Ownership, Property Rights, and Related Issues (Full conversation – Parts 1 & 2 combined) Opening Summary and Defense of Co-Ownership (0:00–4:41) Kinsella summarizes his long-standing view: co-ownership of scarce resources is unproblematic and historically unquestioned. Property rights exist to avoid interpersonal conflict over rivalrous (scarce) resources; contracts can split the “bundle of rights” in ways that still prevent conflict. Examples: state-owned property is actually co-owned by taxpayers/victims; homesteading-by-proxy creates temporary co-ownership; wills can be structured to achieve the same result even if death technically ends the testator’s existence. Hoppe, Easements, and Collective Homesteading (4:41–8:22) Sinard: critics are taking Hoppe too literally when he says “only one owner per resource.” Hoppe himself recognizes easements, servitudes, and even collective homesteading (e.g., a commonly used village path). Practical co-ownership (spouses, roommates, joint heirs) already works via contracts and arbitration/divorce/sale when conflict arises. Meta-Norms and the Duty to Avoid Conflict (8:22–9:53) Even when no perfect rule exists, parties still have a background duty to seek peaceful dispute resolution rather than immediate violence. Property rights are not self-enforcing; they presuppose arbitration. Compossibility and the Essentialist Project (9:53–13:18) Sinard is working on an “essentialist” test: a proposed property-rights rule is only justifiable if it is logically compossible (no built-in conflicts). Kinsella links this to Hoppe’s and Hülsmann’s emphasis on compossible rights. Do Critics Really Oppose the Substance or Just the Word? (11:43–17:50) Kinsella suspects the dispute is merely semantic: critics accept contractual arrangements that achieve the same result as co-ownership but refuse the label. Sinard thinks critics mistakenly believe Kinsella derives property rights from contract (rather than contract from prior property rights). Tangent on contractarianism, mutual recognition, and argumentation ethics: mutual respect for rights is a proto-agreement, but contracts remain downstream of property. Consent, Revocability, and the Guest/Tenant Distinction (31:42–36:04) Bare consent (dinner guest, kissing) is revocable at will.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 478. Related: The Universal Principles of Liberty Announcing the Universal Principles of Liberty Fusillo on the Universal Principles of Liberty and Liberland KOL473 | The Universal Principles of Liberty, with Mark Maresca of The White Pillbox Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection, in Legal Foundations of a Free Society A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability and Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith, in Legal Foundations of a Free Society Disentangling Legal and Economic Concepts Dualism, Monism, Scientism, Causality, Teleology: Hoppe, Mises, Rothbard Libertarian Answer Man: Mind-Body Dualism, Self-Ownership, and Property Rights God as Slaveowner; Conversations with Murphy Mises on God KOL293 | Faith and Free Will, with Steve Mendelsohn  This is my appearance on Adam Haman’s podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack), Kinsella's Legal Treatise On Universal Principles Of Liberty | Hn 185 (recorded Nov. 9,  2025; released Dec. 9, 2025). https://youtu.be/tc-hdB_yiS4?si=icPwq5mSS6nDU8LP Adam's show notes: On this episode of Haman Nature, libertarian poker pro Adam Haman is joined once again by libertarian legal theorist (and patent attorney who despises IP) Stephan Kinsella about his new creation: The Universal Principles of Liberty. (apologies, folks - my mic was a bit wonky on this one) 00:00 -- Intro. Welcoming author, attorney, world-traveler, and all-around great guy Stephan Kinsella! 02:54 -- What are "The Universal Principles of Liberty", and why should we be excited by it? 11:40 -- What is a "person"? What is "property"? Why are these things so important to think about clearly? 34:24 -- This simple and elegant document can handle deep and complex issues. 47:54 -- When (and why) does selling not imply ownership, and vice-versa? What does "dualism" have to do with this? What's the confusion between economics and law when dealing with this stuff? 56:53 -- Outro. Go comment on TUPoL! (linked below) Thanks for watching Haman Nature!  Shownotes, links, grok summary, and transcript below. Shownotes (Grok) Haman Nature Podcast – Show Notes Guest: Stephan Kinsella Host: Adam Haman Episode Topic: The Universal Principles of Liberty – A New Foundation for Free Societies   0:00 – Opening Banter & Liberland Passport Shenanigans Stephan shows up in casual clothes after taking a suit-and-tie selfie… for his upcoming Liberland passport photo   Only a libertarian would put on half a suit to pretend to be a government just to get a passport   Stephan is heading to Prague in December 2025 for the signing and announcement of the Liberland Constitution 1:04 – Who is Stephan Kinsella? Patent attorney turned leading anarchist legal theorist   Author of Against Intellectual Property and Legal Foundations of a Free Society   Recent Vegas trip with Adam: helicopter into the Grand Canyon, Venetian St. Mark’s Square (tacky but awesome) 2:59 – Introducing “The Universal Principles of Liberty” (TUPoL) A one-page, elegant, civil-law-style statement of libertarian metanorms   Not a constitution, not a detailed legal code – a foundational layer that private legal systems can build upon   Voluntary opt-in document: you must explicitly sign on to be bound   Purpose: foster conflict-free interaction through reason, experience, and ethics – no state decree, no majority vote 5:09 – Origin Story: From Liberland → Bir Tawil → Universal Principles Stephan helped draft Liberland’s early (still statist) constitution but was uneasy as an anarchist   Long history of libertarian startup-country projects (Seasteading, Atlantis, Prospera, etc.)   Max (FreeMax) approached Stephan about Bir Tawil (unclaimed land between Egypt & Sudan) and wanted principles instead of a state   Co-drafters: Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Alessandro Fusillo, David Dürr, Pat Tinsley 9:16 – Why This Document Now? Refinement of 30+ years of libertarian legal theory (Rothbard, Hoppe, Kinsella)   Earlier concise restatement now in the Libertarian Party platform (plank 2.1/2.2)   Goal: a short, uncontroversial, legally precise statement that any free society can point to 11:40 – Key Features & Definitions “Person” = any sentient being capable of moral agency (includes possible AGI/aliens, excludes animals)   Rights are exclusively property rights in scarce physical resources (no “right to life,” no IP)   Self-ownership is primary and inalienable (the Walter Block voluntary-slavery debate settled against alienability)   Body rights can only be forfeited by committing aggression (proportional punishment/restoration justified) 20:01 – Freedom is a Consequence, Not a Primary Right No need for enumerated positive rights (speech, religion, warm baths)   All legitimate freedoms flow from property rights in body and external resources 23:25 – Why Self-Ownership is Inalienable (and Walter Block is wrong) Body ownership arises from direct embodiment/control, not homesteading   You can abandon or sell homesteaded external resources; you cannot abandon “you”   Contracts are title transfers, not enforceable promises 29:12 – Punishment, Outlaws, and Estoppel Aggressors implicitly consent to proportional defensive/enforcement force   No need for prior signed contract with an outlaw – committing aggression waives the right to complain 34:26 – Weapons of Mass Destruction Clause (Article 8) Indiscriminate devices that cannot be aimed solely at aggressors are legitimately restrictable   Practical insurance/neighborhood covenants would handle most cases anyway 37:39 – Evidentiary Standards Borrowed from Tradition Severe remedies require heightened standards (e.g., beyond reasonable doubt, jury nullification rights)   Roman & common law are largely libertarian and will serve as starting points 40:41 – Select Unjust Laws & Aspirational Closing Explicitly lists taxation, IP, conscription, etc. as unjust   Beautiful final paragraph: “We bow to no state… no power on earth will stop us” (mostly written by Max) 42:47 – Why Law Must Develop Organically (Quote from Stephan’s blog) Detailed armchair legal codes are premature and counterproductive   Law evolves case-by-case through real disputes, custom, and decentralized courts 47:58 – Deep Dive: “Selling Does Not Imply Ownership” & Misesian Dualism Crucial distinction between possession/control (causal/economic) and legal ownership (normative)   Robinson Crusoe has possession but no ownership   Labor/services are not ownable – employment contracts are conditional title transfers of money, not sales of “labor”   Confusing the two realms leads to the fallacious justification for intellectual property 1:06:20 – Free Will, Compatibilism, and Scientism In the causal realm there is no free will (no downward causation)   In the teleological realm of human action we unavoidably treat people as purposeful choosers   Stephan’s “Misesian compatibilism” – both views are correct in their respective domains 1:16:53 – Closing & Future Plans Stephan will push to have TUPoL incorporated into the final Liberland Constitution (to the extent compatible)   Next big project: new comprehensive book on IP/copyright titled Copy This Book   Where to find everything: stephankinsella.com | Universal Principles of Liberty poster & text freely available Links   The Universal Principles of Liberty full text & poster: https://www.stephankinsella.com/principles/   Stephan’s blog announcement: https://stephankinsella.com/2025/08/announcing-the-universal-principles-of-liberty/   Adam’s original Substack post: https://hamannature.substack.com/p/kinsellas-legal-treatise-on-universal Enjoy the episode and go read (and sign!) the Universal Principles of Liberty! Transcript (Youtube/Grok): Haman Nature Interview: Stephan Kinsella on The Universal Principles of Liberty (Corrected transcript – spelling, punctuation, minor grammar, no paraphrasing. Long speaking blocks broken into ≤10-sentence paragraphs. Topical headers with timestamps added.) Opening Banter & Liberland Passport Story [0:00] Adam Haman: Intro. Welcoming author, attorney, world-traveler, and all-around great guy Stephan Kinsella! [0:00] Stephan Kinsella: You forgot your cue. I told you to ask me about my adventure this morning and putting on a suit and tie. [0:06] Adam: I thought that was off because you, sir, are not wearing a suit and tie anymore. [0:11] Stephan: I know. So it wasn’t for you. You know how people—well, I don’t want to mess my shirt up. I can reuse it now. You know how it’s probably common knowledge now that ever since the Zoom era, a lot of people were telecommuting and so they would put on a shirt and tie but they were wearing shorts underneath, right? [0:37] Stephan: So I did something this morning and I was thinking only a libertarian would do this. I put on a suit and tie to take a photo of myself because I need a passport photo. But I don’t need a regular passport photo. I need a photo that I can use for my Liberland passport because I’m going to Prague in December for the signing and announcement of the Liberland Constitution. Formal Introduction [1:04] Adam: Hello and welcome to Haman Nature. I am Adam Haman and that fine fellow fiddling with his pipe on a Houston morning is one Stephan Kinsella. How you doing, sir? [1:15] Stephan: I’m in fine fettle. You’re fine fettle and a fine fellow. [1:22] Adam: For those of you who just woke up underneath a rock, Stephan Kinsella is a legal theorist, one of our best, and also the author of this highly influential book here,

test ignore.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 477. As mentioned in the previous episode (KOL476), Alex Anarcho has begun a narration of Against Intellectual Property, with interspersed commentary. He has so far narrated the first two sections the first of which, "Summary of IP Law," was in KOL476. This episode is Part 2, "Libertarian Perspectives on IP." I have posted a Youtube video containing both parts. Alex assures me that narrations with commentary of the remainder of the book are forthcoming. These can be found in his Against Intellectual Property series, which includes Part I, What is intellectual property? (KOL476) and Part 2, Libertarian Perspectives on IP (this episode). KOL476 contains the transcript for both parts. Previous audio versions of AIP include KOL008 | Against Intellectual Property (audiobook) and KOL373 | Against Intellectual Property (audiobook #2). See other audio versions of my work here. Related: “The Problem with Intellectual Property" A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property https://youtu.be/KmZ85ebk2SI

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 476. Alex Anarcho has begun a narration of Against Intellectual Property, with interspersed commentary. (I appeared on his podcast previously; see KOL444 | Property Rights, Bitcoin, Ideas & Fungibility, with AlexAnarcho.) He has so far narrated the first two sections, the first of which, "Summary of IP Law," is in this episode. "Libertarian Perspectives on IP" follows in the next episode (KOKL477). I have posted a Youtube video containing both parts. Alex assures me that narrations with commentary of the remainder of the book are forthcoming. These can be found in his Against Intellectual Property series, which includes Part I, What is intellectual property? (this episode), and Part 2, Libertarian Perspectives on IP (KOKL477). Previous audio versions of AIP include KOL008 | Against Intellectual Property (audiobook) and KOL373 | Against Intellectual Property (audiobook #2). See other audio versions of my work here. Related: “The Problem with Intellectual Property" A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property Transcript, with added comments and links, below. https://youtu.be/KmZ85ebk2SI Transcript (All endnotes and comments in [brackets] are my annotations. —SK) 0:04 Alex Anarcho: Hey, thanks for tuning in to the Alex Anarco podcast. In this episode and the episodes to follow, I will return to my roots, namely reading books from great libertarian philosophers. When I started the podcast, I was reading The Anatomy of the State by Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard, What Has Government Done to Our Money by Rothbard, and The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand. Then I did a bunch of episodes that were not based on books, but where I was giving my thoughts and having conversations with other like-minded people. But now I think it's time to read yet another book. This book has been very influential in my own thinking about the libertarian philosophy and I think it's a must-read for all who call themselves libertarian or anarchists because it really covers an issue that has not gotten so much attention in the libertarian canon. There is a lot of thought that was spent on political philosophy such as The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard. But this book is kind of a hidden gem. So if you have never heard of it, I think it's a great read or for you I guess a great listen and something you definitely should be aware of. The arguments presented are very strong and they need to be grappled with. For me personally, it was very influential, like I said, and it has significantly changed how I view the world, most specifically the world of software. For anybody who has been aware of my podcast, I'm a very big fan of the cypherpunk ethos that aims to change the world through creating technologies that are unstoppable that allow individuals who use them to become sovereign. And I think yeah the backbone for all of this philosophy is also somewhat rooted in the arguments that are put forth in this book or at least they are heavily backed up by the arguments. So what is the book? The book is called Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella as you may have gleaned from the title of this podcast. And Stephan has actually been on this podcast before. I will link in the show notes the episode I did with him. And for a long time I've wanted to read this book to my audience and discuss the ideas put forth in it. So far I didn't get around to it and now I think is better than never. So we will read Against Intellectual Property. We will discuss the ideas and as with any of my episodes, if you want to chime into the conversation, you can go to my website, alexanarcho.live or if you want to reward me for making this content, you can go to xmrchat.com/alexanarco and leave a little tip with Monero XMR. It would be greatly appreciated. Also, if you helped fund this episode, then you are eligible to join a secret Discord, a secret Matrix society on the Matrix messenger. For this you have to go to my website and claim your transaction. And when claiming the transaction in the form, you simply provide your Matrix username and this will yeah the bot will send you an invite then to the group. Let’s dive in Against Intellectual Property. AIP: Property rights: tangible and intangible. All libertarians favor property rights and agree that property rights include rights in tangible resources. These resources include immovable immovables (realty) such as land and houses, and movables such as chairs, clubs, cars, and clocks. 4:18 Alex Anarcho: So I think this is a brilliant distinction and the word tangible may be somewhat foreign but it means exactly what was described here. Basically in my mind it's things that you can touch. So I can walk up to a house and touch the house. I can walk up to a chair and touch the chair. And so things that exist in the real world. (( Note from Kinsella: See “Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward,” n.30: "In AIP I sometimes used the term “tangible” to indicate scarce resources that can be subject to property rights. (I’ve also sometimes used the term corporeal, a civil-law term.) Hardy Bouillon argues that it might be more precise to focus on the difference between material vs. non-material goods, rather than tangible vs. non-tangible goods, as the touchstone of things subject to property rights." )) And for those things, libertarian philosophy puts forth the idea of property rights that these tangible commodities, tangible goods can have a rightful owner. And yeah, I think this is something that we'll come back to every now and again that this is pretty a clear-cut issue and there is not a lot of discussion on this. Basically, from John Locke on the idea of being able to homestead land is very deeply interwoven in libertarian philosophy. AIP: Further, all libertarians support rights in one’s own body. Such rights may be called self-ownership as long as one keeps in mind that there is dispute about whether such body-ownership is alienable in the same way that rights in homesteadable external objects are alienable. 5:48 Alex Anarcho: So alienable means you can kind of outsource them or give them away to somebody else. And I think what he's referring to here is the discussion that for example Walter Block and Murray Rothbard have had—I mean Rothbard has passed away—but the idea can you sell yourself into slavery and for this I will actually read the footnote which reads: AIP: Debate over this issue manifests itself in differences over the issue of inalienability and with respect to the law of contract, i.e., can we sell or alienate our bodies in the same manner that we can alienate title to homesteaded property? For arguments against body inalienability, see Stephan Kinsella, “A Theory of Contracts: Binding Promises, Title Transfers, and Inalienability.” So for example, as I understand it, Rothbard says that you cannot sell yourself into slavery. Like your will is inalienable and therefore you cannot like in perpetuity sell your will to your own body. And Walter Block is of a different opinion as I understand it and say well yes you can do that. (( A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, in  Legal Foundations of a Free Society [LFFS]; KOL442 | Together Strong Debate vs. Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery (Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity). )) So there is some dispute in that regard but I guess the common ground is that we do agree that we own our own body. (( See How We Come To Own Ourselves, in LFFS. )) Yeah. So this is the most immediate thing that we have in the world. If we think back to in The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard explains the scenario of Robinson Crusoe being stranded on his deserted island and the immediate reality he's faced with is the possession and property of his own body that like he can control his own body and he kind of also has to sustain his body in order to keep on living. AIP: In any event, libertarians universally hold that all tangible scarce resources—whether homesteadable or created, immovable or movable, or our very bodies—are subject to rightful control (or ownership) by specified individuals. 8:29 Alex Anarcho: Yeah. So, we'll not get lost in the discussion of can you sell yourself into slavery for this episode, but we'll just surf on the wave of agreement in libertarian circles that yes you can have these property rights in tangible scarce resources. And I think with texts like these is really really important to measure every word. So tangible means things you can touch and scarce means that there is a limited amount of them. (( But see, on scarcity meaning either "lack of abundance," on the one hand, or "not superabundant," on the other, On Property Rights in Superabundant Bananas and Property Rights as Normative Support for Possession; “Good Ideas is Pretty Scarce”; KOL337 | Join the Wasabikas Ep. 15.0: You Don’t Own Bitcoin—Property Rights, Praxeology and the Foundations of Private Law, with Max Hillebrand; KOL176 | “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics: Lecture 5: Property, Scarcity and Ideas; Examining Rights-Based Arguments for IP” (Mises Academy, 2011); Objectivists Hsieh and Perkins on IP and Pirating Music; “On Conflictability and Conflictable Resources.” )) And the whole idea of property rights is because of the scarcity aspect. If things were abundant and you could have like press a magic button and things would just appear out of thin air, property rights wouldn't really make a whole lot of sense. The purpose of property rights is to reduce conflict that we can have over these scarce resources. Namely, well, can I sleep in this particular bed or is that your bed to sleep in? So,