KOL487 | Stephan Kinsella, “Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe: An Indispensable Framework” (Rothbard at 100)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 487. Also podcast as Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 323. AI-assisted audio narration of the main chapters of Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment (Papinian Press and The Saif House, 2026) is available at this PFS Youtube Playlist; the mp3 files may also be downloaded in this zip file. The first two chapters—my "Preface" and Hans's “Introduction”—were published the week of Rothbard's birthday here on the Property and Freedom Podcast (PFP315 and PFP314). The other main chapters will be released sequentially weekly on Mondays. The next in the queue: 8. Stephan Kinsella, “Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe: An Indispensable Framework” https://youtu.be/n7OTxD-c1Mg?si=fiCzePXZvdQLrko4

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 486. https://youtu.be/olnDr8mDjlQ?si=mmoYBJWM_8yzmd1t This is my appearance on the Mark Edge show. Shownotes: Mark Edge invites libertarian legal theorist and retired patent attorney Stephan Kinsella to unpack the stunning April 1st memo from the Mises Institute announcing that Hans-Hermann Hoppe — their longtime Distinguished Senior Fellow and arguably the most important living Rothbardian — is no longer affiliated with the Institute. Kinsella walks through the backstory: his own 2013 resignation, the recent departures of three Mises presidents, a private memo Hoppe and Guido Hülsmann sent the board over governance issues, tensions surrounding Javier Milei, and the "Quo Vadis" essay that preceded Hoppe's termination. Kinsella also previews the new book he and Hoppe co-edited celebrating Murray Rothbard's 100th birthday, the upcoming Rothbard celebration in Porto, Portugal (June 27), and the Property and Freedom Society meeting in September. Related: Hoppe Removed as Mises Institute Senior Distinguished Fellow Hoppe, “Mises Institute: Quo Vadis?,” Property and Freedom Journal (March 25, 2026) Hoppe: Mises Institute: Quo Vadis: Postscript

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 485. My recent appearance on The Brownstone Show, Ep. 17 (twitter video). https://youtu.be/n_HE_nXf3aM?si=3eYpF5jW5HadXwJD&t=1942 From Brownstone's shownotes: Jeffrey Tucker sits down with Stephan Kinsella...libertarian attorney, author of the seminal 2001 essay "Against Intellectual Property", and the massive treatise "Legal Foundations of a Free Society"...for a provocative discussion on why defamation (libel and slander) law should be rejected as just another form of intellectual property right. Kinsella argues that reputation is not ownable property. What others think of you cannot be controlled or turned into a legal entitlement. Defamation law, like patents, copyrights, and trademarks, rests on the flawed idea that the state should protect intangible "rights" through force. He explains how these laws create chilling effects, perverse incentives, and actually amplify the harm of false speech rather than reduce it. Topics covered include: Why intellectual property (including trademarks and defamation) is incompatible with true property rights and free markets The historical and common-law roots of defamation and how it morphed into reputation-as-property How the existence of defamation lawsuits gives lies more credibility ("If it weren't true, he would have sued") Free speech, threats, and the limits of state power Private alternatives: reputation markets, certification agencies, dueling culture, caveat emptor for information, and why a truly free society would be more (not less) regulated by voluntary rules Connections to patents destroying innovation (especially in pharma and software), NDAs, cancel culture, and the illusion of safety created by regulatory bodies like the FDA Why "buyer beware" should apply to both products and information in a free society This is a challenging, nuanced conversation that questions deeply held assumptions about law, harm, honor, and reputation. Even if you initially disagree, Kinsella’s razor-sharp property-rights analysis will make you rethink how we handle speech, lies, and "harm" in the digital age. Tweet: 👉The Brownstone Show: @jeffreytucker interviews @NSKinsella: Why defamation law is just another form of intellectual property—and why abolishing it would make lies less powerful, not more. Eye-opening take on reputation, free speech, and private alternatives. 🔏 pic.twitter.com/dY1JWagDoA — Brownstone Institute (@brownstoneinst) April 9, 2026 Related: “Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property,” in A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, edited by Jörg Guido Hülsmann & Stephan Kinsella (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2024) "Against Intellectual Property" "Legal Foundations of a Free Society" “The Problem with Intellectual Property,” in Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics, 2nd ed., Christoph Lütge & Marianne Thejls Ziegler, eds. (Springer, forthcoming 2026; Robert McGee, section ed.) On dueling: Libertarian Answer Man: Dueling, Stalking, Restraining Orders Review of Patrick Burke, No Harm: Ethical Principles for a Free Market (1994) Transcript below. As Tucker mentioned to me: I seriously doubt that any podcast ever has made this crucial point, namely that market forces can be more ferocious regulators than federal agencies that have been set up for the purpose of providing legal cover for unsafe products. So this discussion breaks important new ground in understanding what the free market really is. I hope people make it all the way through—it's a completely different take than I've ever seen. My comment: This is a good illustration of the power of cumulative ideas. I feel like Patrick Swayze in the movie Road House: tagline: "Bustin heads and breakin' hearts." Funny interchange: Kinsella: You could imagine if there was not the litigious, legal industry of defamation lawsuits and it was not a legal thing. You could imagine private solutions would emerge. In fact, the private solution used to be, “I challenge you to a duel.” You besmirch my honor. But of course, the state has outlawed dueling. Tucker: I keep imagining that there should be a resurrection of at least a rigorously constructed defense of dueling in history. I think it has gotten a bad name, actually. Kinsella: Do you think you and I would still be around if dueling was permitted? Jeffrey Tucker: Yeah. One of us would at least have a ... Kinsella: Kinsella and Tucker dead at 41. Tucker: I am not that good a shot, and I am not sure you are either. Stephan Kinsella: Right. I do not mean us either, you know? Transcript [Speaker names may not always be correctly attributed; blame Grok and ChatGPT, Gemini seemed to help] Introduction to Stephan Kinsella and His Views on Intellectual Property [0:10] Jeffrey Tucker: This is Jeffrey Tucker, President, Brownstone Institute. I am very pleased today to have with me Stephan Kinsella, an attorney who is the author of a 2001 article called “Against Intellectual Property” and more recently, a large treatise called “The Legal Foundations of a Free Society.” He is one of the most important thinkers of our time, and I think he has had a huge influence on me. At some point in the mid-2010s, because his article came out, I thought it was probably not correct. I thought it was wrong; at least I thought it was a distraction. Essentially, what the article says is that intellectual property is an illegitimate concept, that ideas cannot be commodified and turned into property, and that the attempt to do so is destructive of market forces, information flows, and society in particular. This pertains to copyrights, patents, and yes, even trademarks. The thesis is shocking, and probably as you listen to this, you are thinking that cannot be true. Then nobody would have the incentive to create, and so on. These are the usual comebacks. But I promise you, if you think about it long enough, as I did for years, you eventually come to be persuaded. Because of that, I shifted in my own career to only publishing within the commons. There was, at some point in this period, an innovation of the copyright status that made available to publishers what is called Creative Commons, with a number of different licenses and terms of use. So, in my own work, I embraced the Creative Commons license with only one provision of attribution. That has been, I think, a real key to the success of many of my own personal projects. Also, as a publisher, Brownstone only publishes in the commons. As far as I know, we are the only ones. There may be other nonprofits that do it, but I am not familiar with them. It is a completely different model. One thing about this model is that it prevents conflicts between the publishers and authors. If an author does not like what Brownstone is doing, does not think we are marketing it enough, or does not like us anymore, they are free to take it back and go to another publisher. We are not holding anybody against their will, which prevents conflicts. Normal publishers not only retain copyright but also tie that to distribution rights, which last for the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. This means that an author’s grandchildren are the ones who will be responsible for getting the work back in print at some point. Most authors have no idea what they are getting into when they enter into these contracts. It is actually quite sad. The patent issue is another matter entirely. It has practically destroyed innovation in the software world and, unfortunately, innovation in many aspects of life has led to vast corporate cronyism, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. There is an enormous amount of unspeakable corruption in pharmaceuticals as a result of patents. Today, we are not going to want to rehearse all these arguments on this particular topic, although it is important to understand them as background. What we are going to do today with Stephan is discuss a much more difficult and related topic, which has to do with the issue of defamation. This is a major problem in the world of the Internet, where anybody can just go online and say anything about anyone. The courts have always said that it has had, at best, very high standards for defamation in the case of public figures, and it hardly ever works to sue somebody for defamation. We have got a kind of defamation free-for-all going on. This is made much worse by the NDAs that are ubiquitous in the corporate world today, so that everybody is under some kind of non-disparagement agreement. This has provided a kind of a license for defamation on the Internet. Stephan takes an unusual position. I think I am just going to use this interview to explore this a little bit and any other related areas. Welcome to the Brownstone Show. Stephan, thanks for coming. Stephan Kinsella: Thanks very much, Jeff. Glad to be here. Intuitions Behind Defamation Law and Connection to Property Rights [5:44] Jeffrey Tucker: Let us start with the basics. I mean, let me just say at the outset, it connects with a certain intuition, I think, in British law and just normal course of life that there is something wrong with defamation. You have to think about it this way: Would you rather have somebody steal a potted plant off your porch or have some major account smear you all over the Internet as an evil, terrible person in ways that you cannot contradict? There is a sense in which it seems defamation can be potentially more injurious to the individual than, say, petty theft. So you recognize that, right? That is the source, I think, of defamation law. Stephan Kinsella: Absolutely. I think that the intuition is that, a kind of rough approximation of the law is that the law is there to stop you from being harmed. It is to stop harm. That is it. Generally, acts of aggression harm you, which is why the law prohibits aggression and theft and

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. Pictures, transcript and shownotes below. https://youtu.be/rrFHYJ53C8g Related: Locke, Smith, Marx; the Labor Theory of Property and the Labor Theory of Value; and Rothbard, Gordon, and Intellectual Property KOL472 | “What Is Property? And What Is Not? — Part 2 — Fireside Chat on Intellectual Property with Albert Lu,” Capitalism & Morality (Vancouver) KOL471 | “What Is Property? And What Is Not? — Part 1,” Capitalism & Morality (Vancouver) The Problem with Intellectual Property (2026) Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) Photos Shownotes (Grok) Shownotes: Stephan Kinsella – “The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property” Loyola University New Orleans Economics Club & Omicron Delta Epsilon February 24, 2026 (KOL 483 podcast) Approximate timestamps based on transcript pacing (~70-minute total runtime) 00:00 – Welcome and Introduction Leo Krasnozhon opens the event, welcoming attendees despite a boil advisory and introducing Stephan Kinsella as a retired patent lawyer, LSU alumnus (undergrad and law school), and longtime Mises Institute affiliate who has collaborated with Walter Block. He highlights the topic of intellectual property rights, admits his own limited knowledge of it, notes the co-sponsorship with Omicron Delta Epsilon (with chapter president Emily Tion present), and passes the floor to Tyler, president of the Economics Club, to officially begin. 01:25 – Brief Co-Sponsor Welcome An Omicron Delta Epsilon representative offers a short welcome and mentions that a Q&A session will follow the presentation. 01:35 – Stephan Kinsella: Personal Background and Path to Anti-IP Views Kinsella thanks the hosts—Omicron Delta Epsilon, the Loyola Economics Club, Walter Block, and Leo Krasnozhon—and recalls his long acquaintance with Block (both former Mises senior fellows). He recounts his career: beginning law practice around 1992 in Houston (initially oil and gas), shifting to intellectual property and patent law, with stints in Philadelphia before returning home. As a longtime libertarian, Austrian economist, and anarchist, he initially assumed intellectual property was legitimate property, partly influenced by Ayn Rand’s support for it. However, he found her arguments unpersuasive—especially the fact that patents and copyrights expire while physical property like land and cars does not. When he became both a patent attorney and a libertarian scholar, he set out to develop a strong defense of IP but ultimately concluded the system is deeply flawed and should be abolished. He reached this view around 1994, shortly after passing the patent bar, and initially kept quiet while practicing, later speaking openly once he realized his professional peers were indifferent to his opinions. ~03:28 – Talk Overview and Recommended Readings The presentation is titled “The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property,” deliberately echoing Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s The Economics and Ethics of Private Property. Kinsella plans to speak for roughly 30–40 minutes, leaving ample time for questions. He acknowledges the topic’s breadth—having previously taught a six-week online Mises Academy course on it in 2011—and notes his deep interest in legal theory, IP theory, Louisiana civil law (where he authored a civil law dictionary), and international law, all interconnected through an economic lens. He recommends his own published works (shown on a slide) as primary sources, along with Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine’s empirical book Against Intellectual Monopoly for further reading. ~05:02 – Defining Intellectual Property and Scope of Critique Intellectual property refers to legal protections for “products of the mind.” The two primary statutory forms are patents and copyrights, which are legislated monopolies rather than common-law institutions. Other types that emerged from common law include trademarks, trade secrets, and defamation (which Kinsella argues belongs in the IP category because reputation rights protected by defamation law suffer from the same conceptual flaws as trademark rights). More recent or special-interest forms include boat-hull designs, semiconductor mask works, personality/name/image/likeness rights (now prominent for college athletes), moral rights, and database rights. Proposals to expand IP continue in areas such as fashion, hyperlinks, and newspaper headlines. The talk focuses primarily on patents and copyrights as the most prominent and damaging forms. ~06:26 – Constitutional Foundation and Historical Origins In the United States, patents and copyrights derive from the 1789 IP Clause (Article I, Section 8), which empowers Congress “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” by granting exclusive rights to authors and inventors for limited times. In 1789 terminology, “Science” referred to systematic bodies of knowledge (including literary arts), while “useful Arts” meant artisan inventions—meanings essentially reversed from today. Congress acted quickly, enacting the first modern patent and copyright statutes in 1790. The following year (1791), the Bill of Rights was added; the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press creates an obvious tension with copyright enforcement (e.g., judicial blocks on publishing copies of Harry Potter), though courts have not recognized an irreconcilable conflict. Historically, patents began as royal monopoly letters in Europe granting exclusive privileges to court favorites, leading to abuses that prompted England’s 1623 Statute of Monopolies (which curtailed most monopolies but preserved them for new inventions). Copyright arose from the printing press threatening state and church control of information, resulting in the Stationers’ Company monopoly and, after its expiration, the 1710 Statute of Anne, which shifted rights to authors. Both systems originated in protectionism, mercantilism, and control of thought. ~10:40 – Early American View: Monopolies, Not Natural Property The framers treated patents and copyrights as temporary monopoly privileges, not natural property rights—a fact often misrepresented by modern proponents (e.g., Objectivists such as Adam Mossoff). Thomas Jefferson, writing to James Madison during the Bill of Rights drafting process, expressed concern about the IP Clause and suggested constitutional language limiting such monopolies to short, fixed terms—language that, if adopted, would have prevented today’s extensions (e.g., life of the author plus 70 years). The purpose was narrowly pragmatic: temporary incentives for arts and sciences, not recognition of inherent ownership. ~12:37 – The 19th-Century Anti-Patent Movement By the 1850s, amid expanding world trade and the industrial revolution, free-market economists increasingly criticized patents and copyrights as anticompetitive government monopolies inconsistent with free trade. A global anti-patent movement gained momentum; some countries repealed or refrained from enacting patent laws. The push collapsed after the 1873 Long Depression (a prolonged worldwide recession then called “the great depression”), which soured public opinion on free trade and allowed the patent system to persist—representing a missed historical opportunity to eliminate it. ~14:01 – Contemporary Arguments For and Against IP Today’s defenses of IP fall into two main categories: utilitarian/consequentialist (economic/empirical) and deontological/principled (rights-based), with a lesser-known Hegelian personality theory occasionally invoked. Common myths include claims that IP protects the “little guy,” forces disclosure of secret inventions, constitutes a natural or founder-intended property right, explains Western wealth, or is essential for books, art, and inventions—none of which hold up historically or empirically. Euphemisms such as “stealing,” “piracy,” and “theft” obscure that infringement differs fundamentally from physical theft. ~16:10 – Absurd and Weak Pro-IP Arguments Kinsella dismisses several particularly weak claims: a patent attorney’s assertion that the Swiss patent office indirectly enabled Einstein’s theory of relativity; William Shughart’s argument that lack of international copyright forced Charles Dickens to tour the U.S., catch a cold, and die; and hyperbolic equivalences of anti-IP views to support for pedophilia, stage collapses, baby-stealing, or slavery. He also notes confusion over intangibles (e.g., fiat money is intangible, but gold-based money was not). ~18:18 – The Utilitarian/Economic Case Examined Proponents argue that without IP, markets would underproduce creative works and inventions because copiers free-ride on expensive R&D, so temporary monopolies allow cost recovery via monopoly pricing. Some acknowledge this slows idea diffusion but claim it ultimately produces more ideas overall. Yet empirical evidence is lacking: Fritz Machlup’s 1958 Senate-commissioned study found no certainty of net social benefit and deemed it irresponsible to create a patent system from scratch; George Priest (1986) stated economists know almost nothing about patents’ welfare effects; 2004 French economists said cost-benefit analysis remains impossible; and Boldrin & Levine (2013) concluded there is no empirical support for the cla

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. Related: Libertarian Answer Man: Restrictive Covenants and Homeowners Associations (HOAs) Libertarian Answer Man: Restrictive Covenants, Reserved Rights, and Copyright KOL479 | Co-Ownership Revisited: Property Rights, Exclusion, Contracts, and Edge Cases, with Nick Sinard KOL354 | CDA §230, Being “Part of the State,” Co-ownership, Causation, Defamation, with Nick Sinard Libertarian Answer Man: Corporations, Trusts, HOAs, and Private Law Codes in a Private Law Society 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. ...

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,...