KOL478 | Haman Nature Hn 185: The Universal Principles of Liberty

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,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 475. This is my guest lecture for Saifedean Ammous's course Principles of Austrian Economics II | ECON104 (recorded May 7, 2020, I believe), also now on Saylor Academy. Transcript and summary and other notes below. KOL441 | The Bitcoin Standard Podcast with Saifedean Ammous: Legal Foundations of a Free Society, Property Rights, Intellectual Property KOL314 | Patents vs. Bitcoin: The Bitcoin Standard Podcast (Saifedean Ammous) https://youtu.be/02wY_qL0qRU?si=HU40GGg8xu6Wfn3U GROK SUMMARY Summary of Economics 12 Seminar: Intellectual Property Discussion with Stephan Kinsella Introduction to Intellectual Property and Scarcity Timestamp: 0:01 In the ninth discussion seminar of Economics 12, Principles of Economics 2, host Saifedean Ammous introduces guest discussant Stephan Kinsella, who has written extensively on intellectual property (IP) and its justifications. The lecture focuses on Kinsella’s paper, which explores the legitimacy of property rights and why IP lacks a coherent basis. Ammous highlights the core issue of scarcity: property rights manage scarce resources, but ideas, being non-scarce, cannot be owned without controlling others’ bodies or property, violating individual rights. This is described as a “kill shot” to IP arguments, though other critiques are also explored. Utilitarian and Natural Rights Arguments Against IP Timestamp: 3:07 Stephan Kinsella elaborates on the incoherence of IP, arguing that information is a characteristic of owned resources, not property itself. Claiming ownership over ideas, like owning the “redness” of a ball, would absurdly grant control over others’ property. He traces IP’s origins to Locke’s labor theory of property, which confuses action with ownership, leading to flawed justifications by Ayn Rand and others. Kinsella critiques the utilitarian argument that IP stimulates innovation, noting the U.S. Constitution’s temporary monopoly grants were based on unproven assumptions. He argues that 200 years of data fail to show IP’s net benefit, with studies suggesting it distorts or depresses innovation. Empirical Weaknesses and Market Failures Timestamp: 7:44 Kinsella challenges the empirical case for IP, pointing out that proponents assume a market failure in innovation without government intervention. However, studies are inconclusive or show patents hinder innovation, costing billions annually in the U.S. alone. He criticizes reports like the Commerce Department’s, which claim IP-intensive industries drive GDP, for mistaking correlation with causation. Ammous adds that academic theoretical models often support IP without empirical backing, relying on simulated universes to justify claims of increased innovation, further highlighting the lack of real-world evidence. Alternative Business Models Without IP Timestamp: 19:13 Ammous argues that the assumption IP is essential for creators’ income reflects limited imagination. Musicians, for instance, earn most of their income from concerts and sponsorships, not record sales, as seen with artists from local bands to superstars like Madonna. Platforms like SoundCloud and YouTube allow free music distribution, boosting popularity and concert attendance, as evidenced by Iron Maiden’s use of BitTorrent data for tour planning. Authors can profit from physical books, courses, or speaking engagements. Without IP, lower legal costs would reduce prices, benefiting consumers and producers, with first-mover advantages and reputation sufficing for profitability. Trade Secrets and Regulatory Impacts Timestamp: 27:44 Kinsella discusses trade secrets as an alternative to patents, noting that patent law encourages disclosure over secrecy, undermining natural market advantages. The FDA’s regulatory system exacerbates this by requiring public disclosure during drug approval, negating trade secret benefits and justifying patents. He argues that removing both systems would allow trade secrets and first-mover advantages to thrive, criticizing the cycle where one regulation (FDA) necessitates another (patents). Ammous suggests that trade secrets could reduce offshoring, potentially benefiting local industries. Market Solutions and Moral Considerations Timestamp: 32:58 Kinsella proposes that in a free market, creators like J.K. Rowling could profit without IP through fan support, crowdfunding, or authorized endorsements, as fans value authenticity. He refutes claims that IP prevents fraud or plagiarism, noting market mechanisms like Amazon’s removal of knockoff books naturally police such issues. Ammous emphasizes that fans are unlikely to harm creators they admire, and pirated copies by non-paying audiences only expand reach. Kinsella illustrates with examples like fake Crest toothpaste or McDonald’s, showing market incentives deter fraud without IP laws. Visual Critique of Patent Policy Timestamp: 42:28 Kinsella shares a chart critiquing libertarian Alex Tabarrok’s “patent policy on the back of a napkin,” which assumes an optimal patent strength without data. He argues that innovation decreases with more patent protection, contrary to Tabarrok’s unproven Gaussian curve, reflecting a broader failure of empiricists to address IP’s root issues. Student Questions: Photography and Copyright Timestamp: 45:25 A student, Tim, a former photographer, raises concerns about copyright’s role in photography, citing moral issues when images are used without permission, potentially stifling creativity. Ammous suggests market demand may not support all photographers, and alternative income sources like event photography could replace royalty-based models. Kinsella argues that copyright on photographs is absurd, citing cases like a monkey taking photos, and notes that digital technology makes copying unstoppable. He suggests private contracts or watermarks as solutions, emphasizing that information, once public, cannot be controlled like property. Case Studies: Samsung, Apple, and Tesla Timestamp: 1:03:03 Student Daniel discusses the Samsung-Apple patent battles, which enriched lawyers, and Tesla’s 2014 decision to open its patents, which didn’t spur expected innovation in electric cars. Kinsella notes that patent disputes create cartels, locking out small innovators, and Tesla’s move was largely PR, as they likely still acquire patents for defense. He argues patent thickets hinder innovation, acting as a tax on building upon prior technologies. Open-Source Models and Ethereum Timestamp: 1:12:28 Ammous praises open-source models like Linux, which avoid patent taxes and dominate critical infrastructure. Student Andrew highlights Ethereum’s open-source innovation, but Ammous critiques it as a Ponzi scheme, producing unprofitable “Rube Goldberg machines.” Kinsella humorously notes Ammous’s tendency to bring up crypto, contrasting it with his own focus on IP. Protecting Trade Secrets and NDAs Timestamp: 1:24:24 Ammous and Kinsella discuss trade secrets as a viable alternative, using NDAs to protect proprietary processes without patents. Kinsella explains that NDAs create contractual disincentives for leaks, but patents discourage secrecy by risking others patenting the same invention. They address concerns about employees leaking secrets, suggesting contracts and incentives like bonuses can suffice without resorting to violence. Ammous argues that Austrian economics shows coercive solutions backfire. Guilds and Market Dynamics Timestamp: 1:41:43 Ammous proposes that in a free market, industries like car manufacturing could form guilds to mutually respect innovations, shunning violators. However, he remains skeptical, believing information wants to be free and markets will find profitable models without IP. Bitcoin’s open-source success, dominating despite copycats, illustrates this, as its competitors lose relevance over time. Conclusion Timestamp: 1:46:11 The seminar concludes with Kinsella and Ammous emphasizing that IP’s flaws—philosophical, ethical, and empirical—outweigh its benefits. [Actually, I don't concede there are any benefits. —SK] They advocate for market-driven solutions [there is no problem to have a "solution" to], encouraging students to contact Kinsella for further questions and to follow him on Twitter. The discussion underscores the power of free markets to innovate without IP’s coercive framework. *** Audience Pre-Lecture Discussion and Questions Kinsella: For our joint lecture today, I think these are some of the resources you might want to share with the class, for the utilitarianism/empiricism issue (all articles or posts by me unless noted otherwise) There’s No Such Thing as a Free Patent, Mises Daily (Mar. 7, 2005) “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright” (Oct. 23, 2012) Against Intellectual Property, the section "Utilitarian Defenses of IP" Boldrin & Levine, The Case Against Patents: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.27.1.3 B&L, Against Intellectual Monopoly http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm See also: The Problem with Intellectual Property Boldrin and Levine: The Case Against Patents A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP Kinsella, You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) Kinsella, ed., The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) Question from Peter: Please see below my question for tomorrow’s seminar. Unfortunately I won’t be able to join the session live so I’d be grateful if you could ask this on my behalf. As a lawyer how much of the legal work you encounter do you think would still exist in a libertarian society based solely on private law? Clearly there would no IP lawyers, tax lawyers or lawyers advising on regulatory compliance. If you strip away this “statist” part of the legal profession as it exists in the 21st century,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 474. “Where The Common Law Goes Wrong,” 2025 Annual Meeting, Property and Freedom Society, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 19, 2025). Also at PFP297 | Stephan Kinsella, Where The Common Law Goes Wrong (PFS 2025). Below are my notes, Shownotes provided by Grok, and the transcript. This recording is from my iphone. Professional recording and video will be uploaded later. See also Sebastian Wang, "Stephan Kinsella on the Common Law: Lessons from Bodrum 2025," Libertarian Alliance [UK] Blog (Sep. 19, 2025). Pix. https://youtu.be/93rGev1O-D4 Grok Shownotes Show Notes: Stephan Kinsella’s “Where the Common Law Goes Wrong” – Property and Freedom Society 2025 Annual Meeting Introduction and Context Stephan Kinsella delivered his talk, “Where the Common Law Goes Wrong,” at the Property and Freedom Society’s 2025 Annual Meeting in Bodrum, Turkey, on September 21, 2025. Introduced by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who shared a brief anecdote about media bias in translating Donald Trump’s interactions, Kinsella’s presentation revisits themes from his earlier PFS talks in 2012 and 2021, focusing on the interplay between libertarian principles, Roman law, and the common law. Drawing on his recent work, including the Universal Principles of Liberty (co-authored with Alessandro Fusillo, David Dürr, FreeMax, and Patrick Tinsley, under Hoppe’s guidance), Kinsella emphasizes the organic development of law and critiques the modern tendency to equate law with legislation. He humorously recounts preparing for the talk with his trainer, who mistook “common law” for “common law marriage,” highlighting the need to clarify legal concepts for a broader audience. Defining Law and Its Evolution Kinsella begins by distinguishing types of law: descriptive (e.g., laws of physics, economics) and normative (e.g., moral codes, legal systems). Legal laws, he argues, blend normative guidance with descriptive consequences, aiming to achieve justice through property rights. He contrasts the modern view of law as statutory decrees—illustrated by tax protesters demanding to “show me the law”—with its historical roots in decentralized systems like Roman law (500 BC–565 AD) and English common law (1066–present). These systems evolved organically through court decisions, with Roman law preserved in Justinian’s Corpus Juris Civilis and later rediscovered in Bologna around 1070, influencing European civil codes. Kinsella notes that post-1789 democratic shifts and bureaucratic growth led to an explosion of legislation, overshadowing these private law traditions. Roman Law vs. Common Law The talk explores why Anglo-American scholars, like Hayek and Leoni, often praise the common law’s spontaneous order while overlooking Roman law’s similar decentralized origins. Kinsella cites Hoppe’s observation, from Democracy: The God That Failed, that the common law’s non-codified nature may serve lawyers’ interests by making it less accessible to laypeople, unlike Europe’s clearer civil codes. He refutes the misconception that civil law systems inherently embody totalitarian principles (“all that is not permitted is forbidden”), attributing Europe’s socialism to separate legislation, not civil codes. Both Roman and common law, Kinsella argues, offer valuable insights for libertarians, despite the former’s neglect in free-market scholarship. Libertarian Law and Rationalism Critique Kinsella critiques the rationalistic tendency among libertarians to design top-down “libertarian law codes,” as exemplified by Rothbard’s hope for a comprehensive code in The Ethics of Liberty. Such approaches, he argues, ignore context and the limits of deductive reasoning, echoing Hayek’s critique of constructivist rationalism. Law, as a practical response to scarcity and conflict, developed through real-world judicial decisions over centuries. Kinsella suggests that libertarian law should evolve organically, using Roman and common law as starting points, guided by principles like non-aggression but subject to scrutiny for compatibility with liberty. He references G.K. Chesterton’s “fence paradox” to caution against discarding established legal traditions without understanding their purpose. Where Common Law Goes Wrong and Right Kinsella identifies aspects of common law incompatible with libertarian principles, including the doctrine of consideration in contracts (unnecessary, as Roman law shows), blackmail, trademark, defamation, trade secret laws, common law copyright, coverture (denying married women’s property rights), and primogeniture. Conversely, he praises common law solutions like mens rea, joint and several liability, and the felony murder rule, which holds felons liable for deaths during dangerous crimes. He highlights the “but for” causation test’s limitation in cases of multiple actors (e.g., two hunters simultaneously shooting a victim) and the common law’s ingenious solution of treating independent actors as jointly liable, ensuring accountability. Vision for Libertarian Legal Development Kinsella envisions a future libertarian society where judges apply core principles, such as those outlined in his Universal Principles of Liberty, while drawing on Roman and common law traditions. These traditions would serve as presumptively valid starting points, subject to rejection if they conflict with libertarian justice. He argues that a fixed libertarian law code is neither feasible nor desirable, given law’s contextual and evolutionary nature. Instead, advocates would argue cases based on libertarian principles and private law precedents, gradually building a distinct libertarian jurisprudence. Kinsella’s talk, rooted in his Legal Foundations of a Free Society and decades of scholarship, underscores the importance of learning from historical legal systems while refining them through libertarian reasoning. Kinsella's Notes Where The Common Law Goes Wrong Background KOL001 | “The (State’s) Corruption of (Private) Law” (PFS 2012) KOL359 | State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PFS 2021) Examples of Libertarian Law vs. Louisiana vs. French vs. Common Law: Consideration and Formalities Legislative Positivism and Rationalism in the Louisiana and French Civil Codes KOL129 | Guest Lecture to Montessori Students: “The Story of Law: What Is Law, and Where Does it Come From?”   Today I’m going to talk about law In particular, about libertarian law, and about decentralized law like the common law and Roman law Returning to a topic I have touched on here before KOL001 | “The (State’s) Corruption of (Private) Law” (PFS 2012) KOL359 | State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PFS 2021) But hopefully with some more wisdom about this topic Stephanie discussion Telling her what my talk would be about She said we are not all lawyers I said well I don’t think most lawyers know about Roman law, or even much about the common law other than how to use it in their daily practice I should have known this already In short, I realized that, contrary to a recent meme, not everyone thinks of Rome once a day Much less knows about Roman Law, or even much about common law So I decided to try to start from some basics And to speak slowly, as Renata Jacobs keeps asking me to do What is Law? That said, let me start from some basics. The word “law” has a broad meaning in different contexts. Law refers some regularity in events; to order, regularity, or rule, depending on the context Various types: descriptive, and normative/prescriptive Descriptive: causal laws; economic laws; laws of logic Normative: moral laws, narrow codes of ethics (doctors, lawyers) Legal laws: are a blend of normative and descriptive. Normative: Just as humans aspire to do good or right—things they “should” do—they are interested in what interpersonal actions involving force are justified, and what enforceable rules are just—what are normally called “laws”. The purpose of law is to do justice, which is normative, and a just law is one that corresponds to the rights we have—the property rights we have. But there is a difference between the laws actually in force in society and those that should be in force—those that are justified. e. we can identify laws that “exist”, i.e. that are in force, which is descriptive/factual. The question of which laws are just or justified is a normative or moral question. Understanding this distinction helps clear up the tired old debate between the natural law proponents (Lon Fuller) and the legal positivist (H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law). Most people now are used to thinking of law as statutes or legislation: commands issued by a legislature, or the US Constitution itself, another written document drafted and approve by vote of a committee; a decree. Until about 100 years ago law was not commonly thought of as synonymous with legislation; now it is. g. income tax protesters saying “show me the law!” Positive Law in the World Today Law was not always thought of as legislation It actually emerged organically over centuries in relatively decentralized processes Primarily, the Roman Law (from about 500BC to about 565 AD (the end of Justinian’s reign) and the Common Law, from about 1066 (Norman Conquest) to present. Each approximately 1000 years The Roman Law was codified and preserved under Justinian in his Corpus Juris Civilis or Justinian Code (529–534 CE) In the meantime law in Europe was based on Germanic customary laws (Salic, Lombard, Visigothic, etc.) Canon law (Church law) And local feudal customs and town statutes Rediscovery in northern Italy and “Reception” into continental practice Around 1070, a complete copy of Justinian’s Digest was found in Bologna

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 473. https://youtu.be/soyywXASOh4?si=pHKdf6awiCXOqXGV From The White Pillbox, Stephan Kinsella's Universal Principles of Liberty. This is my discussion with Mark Maresca, of The White Pillbox, about The Universal Principles of Liberty. (Previous episode: Kinsella as “White Pill”: Maresca, “From the White-PillBox: Part 29. Achilles Heel edition 3”.) Mark's shownotes: Recently Stephan published an exciting document, the Universal Principles of Liberty: https://stephankinsella.com/principles/ Stephan provides some background that led to the Principles, historical context, use cases, and so much more. As always, Stephan demonstrates why he is a true human White Pill. He even challenged me to White Pill him, on my reasoning behind why true free societies may be coming sooner than we think. Some of his key publications: International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution (Oxford, 2020): http://www.kinsellalaw.com/iipr/ Against Intellectual Property (Mises Institute, 2001): http://c4sif.org/aip/ Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Papinian Press, 2023): https://stephankinsella.com/lffs/ Links to other topics we covered in this episode... The Law, by Frederic Bastiat: https://store.mises.org/The-Law-P408.... For a New Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard: https://store.mises.org/For-a-New-Lib... Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises: https://store.mises.org/Human-Action-... The Remnant, from Isaiah's Job, by Albert J. Nock: https://mises.org/mises-daily/isaiahs... The Property and Freedom Society: https://propertyandfreedom.org/ Grok shownotes and transcript below. Grok Shownotes Overview of the Discussion The episode of the White Pillbox features host Mark Maresca interviewing Stephan Kinsella, a prominent intellectual property attorney and libertarian writer from Houston. Recorded on September 06, 2025, the conversation delves into Kinsella's latest work, the "Universal Principles of Liberty," a document aimed at articulating a coherent framework for libertarian principles. This discussion provides listeners with an insightful exploration of libertarian thought, emphasizing practical applications and philosophical underpinnings in the context of transitioning to a freer society. Background on Universal Principles of Liberty Kinsella explains the genesis of the "Universal Principles of Liberty," highlighting his involvement in various libertarian projects, including attempts to draft constitutions for new nations like Liberland. He critiques the traditional concept of constitutions as state-authorizing documents, advocating instead for a statement of principles that avoids legitimizing governmental authority. The project evolved from his earlier work, such as the "Fundamental Principles of Justice," and was collaboratively refined with contributions from attorneys Pat Tinsley, Aleandro Fusillo, David Durr, and oversight from Hans-Hermann Hoppe, reflecting a broad consensus on core libertarian values. Core Libertarian Principles The core of the "Universal Principles of Liberty" rests on four key principles: self-ownership, original appropriation (homesteading), contract, and rectification. Kinsella argues these principles, derived from Roman and English common law, offer a decentralized, organic approach to law that contrasts with statutory legislation. He emphasizes that libertarianism, as a consistent application of these private law principles, rejects state-imposed exceptions like taxation or sovereign immunity, providing a foundation for a free society that can adapt through judicial interpretation rather than legislative fiat. Practical Applications and Flexibility Kinsella discusses the document's practical use as a "guard rail" for free territories or communities, such as Liberland or Prospera in Honduras, where it could guide development and judicial decisions without mandating a top-down structure. The principles are designed to be flexible, allowing adoption by diverse groups—whether through explicit signing (as in Fremax’s project) or implicit acceptance as societal norms. This modularity supports both statist and anarchist contexts, serving as a subsidiary guide where local laws permit, ensuring consistency with libertarian ideals. Addressing Common Concerns A notable section addresses concerns about mass destruction devices, inspired by Fremax’s input, which Kinsella included despite initial reluctance due to its specificity. He clarifies that such devices are not banned per se but are deemed aggressive due to their likely impact on innocent lives, aligning with libertarian opposition to war and collateral damage. This provision also extends to potential threats like chemical or biological agents, with Kinsella suggesting private incentives, such as insurance, could mitigate risks in an anarchist society. Rejection of Positive Law and Social Contracts Kinsella critiques positive law, such as welfare rights or intellectual property, arguing they arise from legislation rather than organic legal processes and thus have no place in a libertarian framework. He also dismantles social contract theory by redefining contracts as title transfers rather than binding obligations, eliminating the basis for voluntary slavery or state legitimacy claims. This perspective underscores the document’s focus on individual consent as a communicated, revocable act. Future Vision and Optimism Looking ahead, Kinsella envisions a future where states wither into irrelevance, akin to the British monarchy, as liberty matures with economic and technological progress (e.g., Bitcoin, AI). He remains hopeful that shared human values of peace and prosperity, enhanced by economic literacy, will naturally support libertarian principles. Maresca shares this optimism, predicting a rapid transition within five to ten years, driven by the erosion of the myth of political authority. Role of Technology Both Kinsella and Maresca highlight technology’s role in this transition, with the internet decentralizing information and undermining propaganda, a process accelerated by smartphones exposing societal issues. Kinsella’s opposition to copyright stems from its threat to this communicative freedom, while Maresca sees Bitcoin and virtual communities as tools to starve the state, fostering enclaves of liberty that could adopt the principles organically. Cultural and Historical Context Kinsella draws on historical examples, like the Soviet collapse teaching the benefits of capitalism, to argue that societal shifts can occur without universal ideological conversion. He also references the pedagogical style of the Louisiana civil code, adapting it to make the principles accessible and illustrative for a pioneering libertarian legal system, given the relative newness of modern libertarianism (60-70 years). Closing Remarks and Resources The episode concludes with Maresca encouraging listeners to explore the "Universal Principles of Liberty" and anticipate Kinsella’s forthcoming annotated commentary and Fremax’s related project, expected in October 2025. Kinsella’s work, including his book "Legal Foundations of a Free Society," is linked in the show notes, offering further resources for those interested in deepening their understanding of libertarian theory and practice. Call to Action Listeners are urged to stay tuned for updates, check the show notes for Kinsella’s publications, and embrace the "white pill" mindset of hope and action. This episode, aired at 10:51 AM CDT on September 06, 2025, serves as both an educational resource and a motivational call to participate in the ongoing struggle for liberty. Youtube transcript (with help from Grok and ChatGPT) Topic: Introduction and State Skepticism 0:08 Mark Maresca: You're skeptical of the state. You're getting over the myth of authority, but the state is still formidable. Or is it? 0:16 Mark Maresca: You've got a front row seat in the transition to a free society. Let's dive head first into the white pillbox with your host, Mark Maresca. Greetings all. Thank you so much for joining today. Today I'm very excited to welcome as my guest Stephan Kinsella. Topic: Guest Welcome and Background 0:35 Mark Maresca: Stephan, thanks for joining me on the White Pillbox. Stephan Kinsella: Glad to be here. Now folks, please check out Stephan's bio in the show notes. But for those of you unfamiliar briefly, Stephan is an intellectual property attorney and prolific libertarian writer from Houston. Some of his publications include international investment, political risk and dispute resolution, against intellectual property, Legal Foundations of a Free Society, and finally the topic of today's interview, the universal principles of liberty, just published. And of course, I'll link to that and all his other major works. 0:59 Mark Maresca: Okay. The universal principles of liberty. It is what it says. It puts me in the mind of sometimes when I've spoken to newbies and kind of introduce what I can about libertarian principles. Sometimes I'll get a question like give me an elevator pitch. Give me sort of a very broad overview and sometimes it's hard to refer them to a website or reference that kind of does it very compactly. This does it at least for certain types of mindsets. So can you give me a brief explanation of what this is and the background of the project? Topic: Background of Universal Principles of Liberty 1:46 Stephan Kinsella:Yeah. So over the years I have been aware of and sometimes involved in various projects,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 470. From my appearance on the Ayn Rand Fan Club with Scott Schiff and William. Their Shownotes: Patent attorney, Libertarian & Ayn Rand fan Stephan Kinsella joins William & Scott to talk about his history in the liberty world and his unique view that property rights should only pertain to physical things, and not to intellectual property. They also talk about Elon Musk opening his patents and the effects of IP law on AI. https://youtu.be/ax-QhyTGxw0?si=MyuQF4TfdeJQpQND Related: Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Anarchists and Others on Intellectual Property “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism” (Mises Daily 2010) Yet another Randian recants on IP An Objectivist Recants on IP Pro-IP “Anarchists” and anti-IP Patent Attorneys Patent Lawyers Who Oppose Patent Law “The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism” “The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism” The Problem with Intellectual Property A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP Grok shownotes: Episode Overview In this episode of the Ayn Rand Fan Club, hosts Scott Schiff and William Swig engage in a thought-provoking discussion with Stephan Kinsella, a retired patent attorney, author, and libertarian thinker with a deep background in Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. The conversation delves into Kinsella’s journey from Objectivism to anarcho-capitalism, his critical stance on intellectual property (IP), and his broader views on libertarian principles. Recorded on August 18, 2025, the episode explores the philosophical and practical implications of IP laws, their impact on innovation, and their compatibility with property rights, while also touching on contemporary libertarian movements. Stephan Kinsella’s Background and Philosophical Evolution Kinsella shares his personal journey, starting with his introduction to Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead in high school, which sparked his interest in Objectivism. Initially a “hardcore Objectivist” for eight years, he later gravitated toward Austrian economics and anarcho-capitalism, influenced by thinkers like Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. As a patent attorney in Houston, Texas, Kinsella began questioning the validity of IP laws in the early 1990s, finding existing justifications—whether utilitarian or Objectivist—unsatisfactory. His career as a patent lawyer, paradoxically, coincided with his growing opposition to the patent and copyright system, which he argues violates fundamental property rights. Critique of Intellectual Property Kinsella’s primary critique of IP centers on its violation of tangible property rights. He argues that patents and copyrights impose non-consensual restrictions, or “negative servitudes,” on how individuals can use their own property, such as a printing press or factory. Drawing from libertarian principles, he contends that property rights should stem from homesteading or contract, not state-granted monopolies. Kinsella rejects both utilitarian arguments (e.g., IP promotes innovation) and natural rights arguments (e.g., creators inherently own their ideas), asserting that there’s no empirical evidence for underproduction of creative works without IP and that the concept of owning labor or ideas is flawed, rooted in a misinterpretation of John Locke’s labor theory. Trademark, Defamation, and Reputation Rights The discussion extends to trademark and defamation laws, which Kinsella also opposes. He explains that trademark law, originally intended to prevent consumer fraud, has evolved into a “reputation right” that protects brands like Rolex or Chanel from dilution, even absent deception. He argues that fraud laws already suffice to address deceptive practices, rendering trademark law unnecessary. Similarly, Kinsella rejects defamation laws, asserting there’s no property right in one’s reputation, as it’s merely others’ opinions. He distinguishes incitement to violence as a separate issue, potentially actionable if it directly causes aggression, but maintains that reputation itself isn’t ownable. Impact of IP on Technology and Culture Kinsella highlights the detrimental effects of IP laws on technological and cultural progress, particularly in the digital age. He notes that patents and copyrights slow the diffusion of knowledge, stifling innovation in fields like AI, where restrictive licensing limits training data and outputs. He cites examples like Elon Musk and Twitter (now X) opening their patents to foster competition and market growth, arguing that IP creates unseen costs by suppressing projects like documentaries or software due to licensing hurdles. Kinsella emphasizes that competition, not monopoly protections, drives progress, challenging the notion that IP is necessary for profitability. Libertarian Principles and the Mises Caucus The conversation shifts to broader libertarian themes, including Kinsella’s involvement with the Mises Caucus, which took over the Libertarian Party to promote principled libertarian candidates. He discusses his work on clarifying property rights and non-aggression principles for the caucus, as well as his recent Universal Principles of Liberty document, which systematizes libertarian legal theory. Kinsella also addresses the controversy surrounding Javier Milei’s influence on the liberty movement, noting divisions among libertarians, with some seeing Milei as a beacon of hope and others, like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, criticizing his policies. Rights, Forfeiture, and Contextual Ethics In the final segment, Kinsella tackles the concept of rights forfeiture in the context of criminal acts, framing it as a semantic issue. He aligns with Ayn Rand’s non-aggression principle, distinguishing between unjustified initiation of force and justified defensive or responsive force. Rights, he argues, are contextual, as William suggests, and their recognition may shift based on actions like murder, though Kinsella prefers to avoid the term “forfeiture,” focusing instead on the justification of force in response to aggression. The episode concludes with reflections on Rand’s ethics, particularly the premoral choice to live, and the gradual cultural shift toward liberty through practical experience and technological advancement. Youtube transcript (cleaned up by Grok): Scott (0:00): Welcome to the Ayn Rand Fan Club. I'm Scott Schiff, along with William Swig. William, how are you today? William (0:07): I'm doing well. How are you? Scott: Good. Good. Well, I'm very pleased we have a well-known libertarian, retired patent attorney, author, and longtime Ayn Rand fan, Stephan Kinsella. Stephan, thank you for joining us today. Stephan (0:20): Glad to be here. Very glad. Scott: And before we get into all the IP stuff that I know is going to come up, can you just give us a little bit about your background story, even how you got into Ayn Rand and libertarianism? Stephan (0:36): Yeah, sure. I am a mostly retired patent attorney here in Houston, Texas. I'm from Louisiana, and I'm 59 years old. So, I was raised in the '70s and '80s in Louisiana, and I was always philosophical. I was into technology and all that, and science fiction. But in high school, I was at a Catholic high school in Baton Rouge, and a librarian who knew I liked literature, reading, and philosophy recommended that I read The Fountainhead. That was in 10th grade. So, I read The Fountainhead and got hooked, got really interested in Objectivism and philosophy. I would say I was a hardcore Objectivist for about eight years. I still consider myself to be an Objectivist if you go by the four main tenets. They probably wouldn’t have me, but I do subscribe to her four main tenets in general terms: egoism, reality, capitalism, individualism, that kind of stuff. I agree with all of it. Still do. Self-interest. But that led me to Mises, Rothbard, the Austrians, and the anarchists, and so I became way more interested in Austrian economics and anarchist theory around law school and college time. When I started practicing law in 1992, I started in oil and gas law at first in Houston, but then I switched to patent law soon after that for career reasons. And when I did that around '93 or '94, I started thinking and writing on libertarian topics like rights and stuff like that. So, I thought maybe I’ll turn my attention to the intellectual property issue because everyone else’s treatment of it was dissatisfying to me—like Galambos, Spooner, Rand, and the utilitarians. There was something wrong with all of their approaches. So, I thought, because I’m a patent attorney and a budding libertarian writer, I can figure it out. I was trying to justify intellectual property for a couple of years, reading everything I could, and finally, I realized why I kept failing: I was trying to justify the unjustifiable, to use, to mangle a Walter Block type of title. The reason I was failing and dissatisfied with all the arguments was that it was unjustified. So, I came to that conclusion right around the time I started practicing patent law. So, for my whole career, I was increasingly opposed to the patent and copyright system while I was doing it for a living. Scott (3:28): Did that affect that? Did judges know your view? Did you practice? Stephan: Well, at first, I tried to downplay my opinions. I would write as a hobby in libertarian journals and editorials and things like that. For my job, my career, I would write legal articles and things like that, and they were sort of separate. But I was a little bit worried that the word would get out that I was an anti-IP patent attorney, and it would hurt me with my partners and my clients. But of course, no one reads anything, and no one cares about it. It’d be like worrying that they would be worried about my religion or my sexual preference or something. No one cares, and they don’t read anything. And not only that,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 469. Related: Tabarrok and Murphy: Why Are US Drug Prices So High? Pharmaceutical Shills and Think Tank Corruption: Sally Pipes’s The World’s Medicine Chest: How America Achieved Pharmaceutical Supremacy―and How to Keep It This is my appearance on Adam Haman’s podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack), episode HN 149, “Free The DRUGS! Stephan KINSELLA Counters Economist Alex TABARROK On Price Controls | Hn 149” (recorded June 25,  2025). Tabarrok seems to be generally pro-free market and an Austrian or fellow traveler. However, although he sometimes criticizes existing IP law, he is not opposed to intellectual property (IP), unlike all the cool Austro-libertarians. (( The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism. )) And he often proposes changes to IP law—sometimes outrageously goofy ones, such as his truly insane idea of replacing the patent system with $3.5 trillion worth of taxpayer subsidies (if you take his logic for a taxpayer funded "medical innovation price fund" to its limit apply it to all forms of patented innovation and other forms of IP like copyright) (( $30 Billion Taxfunded Innovation Contracts: The “Progressive-Libertarian” Solution; Libertarian Favors $80 Billion Annual Tax-Funded “Medical Innovation Prize Fund; What's Worse: $80 Billion or $30 Million?. )) or based on simplistic assertions or confusions like the idea that we can empirically know that we are on the "wrong side" of the optimal patent term length on his ridiculous "Tabarrok Curve." (( Tabarrok: Patent Policy on the Back of a Napkin; The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright; Optimal Patent and Copyright Term Length. )) So even though he's not against IP and thus not a very good libertarian, and he's not a Misesian since he seems to think utility is cardinal, measurable, and knowable, (( "The Problem with Intellectual Property" (2025), Part III.B.2. )) and he’s not an IP law expert either, he keeps trotting out proposals to “reform” IP, such as, I guess, banning free trade or urging that the US engage in IP imperialism to twist the arms of other countries like Australia (see below) to adopt the stronger US patent protections that Tabarrok seems to want to reform. (( See various posts on US style IP Imperialism. )) Read more at Tabarrok and Murphy: Why Are US Drug Prices So High? ... Shownotes, links, grok summary, and transcript below. https://youtu.be/gNRsjF3UXT4?si=2T9-4aE3cMPRoMD1 GROK SUMMARY: In the Haman Nature episode featuring patent attorney and libertarian legal theorist Stephan Kinsella, hosted by Adam Haman, the discussion centers on the high cost of prescription drugs in the United States and the misconceptions surrounding proposed solutions, including critiques of arguments made by economist Alex Tabarrok. Kinsella challenges the notion that former President Trump’s executive order would effectively lower drug prices, arguing that the issue stems from a complex interplay of government regulations, subsidies, and intellectual property (IP) laws, particularly pharmaceutical patents. He disputes the idea that other countries "free ride" on a supposed U.S. "free market" system, emphasizing that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is far from a free market due to patent-driven monopolies that inflate prices and restrict competition. Kinsella’s critique, informed by his extensive work on IP (e.g., his discussions in the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 469, and articles on c4sif.org), highlights how these monopolies distort market dynamics and prevent natural price equalization through arbitrage across borders. The conversation also addresses Tabarrok’s arguments, as discussed in his interview with Bob Murphy, particularly the concept of the "Tabarrok Curve," which posits an optimal level of IP protection to maximize innovation. Kinsella rejects this, asserting that pharmaceutical patents are not the definitive case for IP necessity, as they often delay generic drugs, skew research toward profitable rather than essential medicines, and raise costs for consumers. He points to industries like fashion and software, which thrive without heavy patent reliance, to argue that innovation does not require IP protections (referencing his critiques in “Tabarrok, Cowen, and Douglass North on Patents” and “Software Patents Bad, Pharmaceutical Patents Good?” on c4sif.org). Additionally, Kinsella dismisses Tabarrok’s proposal for a tax-funded prize system to replace IP as an unlibertarian solution that substitutes one form of government intervention for another, citing his analysis in “$30 Billion Taxfunded Innovation Contracts: The ‘Progressive-Libertarian’ Solution” and related articles. He argues that such systems assume government competence in picking winners, which markets historically do better. The discussion concludes with a reflection on whether the Overton Window is shifting on IP issues. Kinsella notes slow progress, particularly in tech and libertarian circles, but acknowledges resistance from entrenched interests like Big Pharma. He emphasizes the need for continued dialogue to challenge the status quo, aligning with his broader advocacy against IP as a barrier to competition and innovation (as detailed in his c4sif.org writings). The episode underscores the complexity of drug pricing and the pitfalls of relying on government-driven solutions, advocating instead for market-driven approaches free from artificial monopolies. 00:00 -- Intro. Welcoming my friend and verifiably smart person, Stephan Kinsella! 00:44 -- Is Trump's new executive order going to make drugs cheaper in the US? 02:26 -- What ever would we do without the government? Are they here to make us safe? 04:30 -- Bob Murphy interviewed Alex Tabarrok about this issue. Stephan has some critiques! 06:32 -- Clip 1: Does Trump's EO "import price controls" from other countries? What's missing from the analysis? 14:38 -- Clip 2: Do countries "free ride" off our "free market" system? Is that why drugs cost more here? No! What freakin' free market?! Also, what does "market failure" really mean? 23:47 -- Clip 3: Price discrimination makes sense in other market areas. What's the problem with using it for pharmaceuticals across national boundaries? 30:27 -- Clip 4: Why do some "free market" economists hate free trade so much? 34:36 -- Clip 5: What on earth is the "Tabarrok Curve" in relation to intellectual property laws? Also, is it true that pharmaceuticals are THE definitive case for the necessity for IP laws? Stephan says not, and shows his work. 52:03 -- A truly bonkers "replacement" for IP: Create a tax-funded prize system for innovation! 57:30 -- Is the Overton Window on the IP issue beginning to shift at all? 1:02:53 -- Outro. Thanks for watching Haman Nature! Background and Relevant Links Tabarrok and Murphy: Why Are US Drug Prices So High? The Problem with Intellectual Property Mark Lemley: The Very Basis Of Our Patent System… Is A Myth Intellectual Property’s Great Fallacy The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright Tabarrok, Cowen, and Douglass North on Patents Tabarrok’s Launching the Innovation Renaissance: Statism, not renaissance Tabarrok: Patent Policy on the Back of a Napkin7 $30 Billion Taxfunded Innovation Contracts: The “Progressive-Libertarian” Solution Libertarian Favors $80 Billion Annual Tax-Funded “Medical Innovation Prize Fund What’s Worse: $80 Billion or $30 Million? Software Patents Bad, Pharmaceutical Patents Good?: confused “libertarian” “opponents” of state monopoly privileges body { font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; } .timestamp { font-weight: bold; color: #555; } .speaker { font-weight: bold; color: #333; } .dialogue { margin-bottom: 10px; } Transcript: Haman Nature with Stephan Kinsella Adam Haman welcomes patent attorney and libertarian legal theorist Stephan Kinsella back to the show to discuss why prescription drugs are so expensive in the US and what can (and should) be done about it. Even "free market" economists like George Mason University's Alex Tabarrok get this wrong! 00:00 Adam Haman: Welcome to Haman Nature! Today, I’m thrilled to have my friend and verifiably smart person, Stephan Kinsella, back on the show! 00:44 Adam Haman: Stephan, let’s dive in. Is Trump’s new executive order going to make drugs cheaper in the US? 00:44 Stephan Kinsella: Well, Adam, the idea that an executive order can just magically lower drug prices oversimplifies a complex issue. The high cost of pharmaceuticals in the US is tied to a web of regulations, subsidies, and intellectual property laws, not something you fix with a pen stroke. Let’s unpack it. 02:26 Adam Haman: It’s easy to lean on the government as the solution. Are they really here to make us safe, or is there more to the story? 02:26 Stephan Kinsella: The notion that we’d be lost without government intervention is a myth. Safety often comes from market incentives and competition, not bureaucratic mandates. The government’s role in drug pricing often distorts markets, driving costs up rather than down. 04:30 Adam Haman: Bob Murphy interviewed Alex Tabarrok about this issue, and I know you’ve got some thoughts on that. What’s your critique? 04:30 Stephan Kinsella: Tabarrok’s take, as discussed with Murphy, misses some critical points. He’s a sharp guy, but his defense of certain policies leans too heavily on statist assumptions. Let’s look at the specifics. 06:32 Adam Haman: Here’s Clip 1: Does Trump’s executive order “import price controls” from other countries? What’s missing from Tabarrok’s analysis?