Kinsella On Liberty

Stephan Kinsella

Austro-Anarchist Libertarian Legal Theory

  1. Oct 22

    KOL504 | Can You Own Bitcoin? Ownership, Possession & Property Rights: Bitcoin Infinity Show #225, with Knut Svanholm

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 504. Cross-posted at PFS. https://youtu.be/M4WB-fTEZZI?si=fRDRoipB51221Eyi My appearance on Bitcoin Infinity #225, With Knut Svanholm. Shownotes: Stephan Kinsella joins the Bitcoin Infinity Show to talk about why you can’t legally own Bitcoin, what the difference between ownership and possession means for self-custody, and whether the July 2026 Coldcard hack was really theft. Knut and Stephan dig into Austrian economics, libertarian contract theory, why fractional reserve banking is harder on a Bitcoin standard, and how Bitcoin could limit the state’s ability to borrow and tax. They also look back at the Property and Freedom Society’s 20th anniversary in Bodrum, Murray Rothbard’s centennial, Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s split with the Mises Institute, and their Austrian economics panel at BTC HEL in Helsinki. 00:00 Introduction 05:38 PFS at 20 Years 11:12 Finnish Sauna Culture 14:58 Health Trends and Bitcoin Culture 20:12 Helsinki and BTCHel 26:46 Meeting Finland's Economics Minister 31:59 Austrian Economics at BTCHel 38:40 What Makes PFS Different 46:32 Possession, Ownership and Bitcoin 54:14 Legal Rights and Natural Law 01:02:32 Contracts, Consent and Promises 01:12:52 Can You Own a Satoshi? 01:19:46 Bitcoin Risk and Diversification 01:30:11 Property, Information and Theft 01:41:28 Exploits, Ethics and Responsibility 01:45:42 Privacy, Taxation and Sovereignty 01:51:13 Can Bitcoin Be Money? 01:57:04 Libertarian Movement Splits 02:05:29 Independent Mises Institutes 02:09:43 Closing Thoughts Related KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) KOL484 | Praxeology, Property Rights & Bitcoin: Bitcoin Infinity Show #192, with Knut Svanholm KOL499 | “Why is Austrian Economics Important?” BTCHEL Helsinki I was wrong... this 2-hour convo between @knutsvanholm and @NSKinsella was MARVELLOUS: intellectual property, whether bitcoin can be _owned_, a history (and update) on the splits in the worldwide libertarian crowd. Minimum Knut/Infinity Show trolling, max value. LOVED IT — Joakim Book (@joakimbook) October 21, 2026 Can You Own Your Bitcoin? BIS #225 with @NSKinsella https://t.co/LLr4q1R7J1 — Bitcoin Infinity Media (@BtcInfinityShow) October 21, 2026 Don't miss this week's show with @NSKinsella. Links below👇 https://t.co/2ntvfdJB5Z— Bitcoin Infinity Media (@BtcInfinityShow) October 25, 2026

  2. Oct 15

    KOL503 | The Bitcoin Group #505: Strong Forecasts – Back Empire – Salvador Stable – Trump Wanes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 503. https://www.youtube.com/live/fofM1rmyE2M?si=R_Xfl7Qf1lNFvh3_ I was a guest recently (Oct. 2, 2026) on The Bitcoin Group #505, on the World Crypto Network (Youtube channel), hosted by Thomas Hunt. (Apple podcasts; Madbitcoins). Panelists: Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella), Vlad Costea, Ben Arc, and Thomas Hunt. We discussed a variety of topics. See transcript below. Shownotes The political bitcoiners thought they had found true love, but ended up broken hearted. Just like anyone who bought trumpcoin THIS WEEK: Citi raises bitcoin, ether forecasts on strong crypto activity (Reuters) Adam ‘Not Satoshi’ Back’s Crypto Empire Hit by Hack, Lawsuits El Salvador Shifts to Stablecoins as Bitcoin Payments Wane Trump loses favor with crypto fans who call him out for cashing in (Washington Post) White House Blames Democrats After CLARITY Act Fails in Senate (Blockonomi) Summary (Grok) Stephan Kinsella joined The Bitcoin Group #505 to discuss Bitcoin’s price, industry news, and politics. On the price outlook, he said he was happy with current levels but noted that hitting $100,000 felt like a long time ago; a group of them had celebrated that milestone at the French Laundry in California. Asked whether Bitcoin would be higher or lower the following week, he predicted higher while cautioning that he is almost always wrong in the short term, likening the unpredictability to Burton Malkiel’s random-walk thesis. On Adam Back’s recent difficulties, including the Liquid Network hack and failed treasury-company efforts, Kinsella wished him well and mentioned having met him for the first time at a Bitcoin conference in Helsinki. He said he was more honored to meet early Bitcoin developer Martti Malmi (Sirius). When asked whether Back would recover, he predicted yes, again noting that he is usually wrong about such things. Kinsella was more pointed about El Salvador’s shift toward stablecoins. He gave it a thumbs-down but said he was never surprised by what governments do, adding “never trust politicians” and drawing a parallel to enthusiasm for Argentina’s Javier Milei. On Donald Trump, he observed that while Trump is “bad” and “all over the map,” he is at least not hostile to Bitcoin in the way Harris or the Democrats would have been. He dismissed fanfare around the Clarity Act and similar legislation as window-dressing that distracts from substantive steps such as lowering or eliminating capital-gains taxes or making Bitcoin legal tender. He added that people who are “taken in” by such politicians “probably deserve to be,” framing it as social Darwinism, and noted that he has seen arguments that Jesus was an anarcho-capitalist who would have been a Bitcoiner. In closing remarks he predicted that Austrian economists would continue to become more pro-Bitcoin. Early skepticism, he said, often rested on the claim that Bitcoin violated the regression theorem because it was neither gold nor physical; those views have largely faded except for his friend Guido Hülsmann, who recently argued in Turkey that Bitcoin can never become money. Near the end of the episode, after the host mentioned copyright-related obstacles (paywalled articles and YouTube content-ID risks), Kinsella observed that intellectual property now permeates everyday life—“like the Sixth Sense, I see IP everywhere.”  Transcript (Grok assist) The Bitcoin Group #505 – Cleaned Transcript (for Kinsella on Liberty Podcast Episode 503) Introductions and Welcome 0:31 Thomas Hunt: The Bitcoin Group, the American original. For over the last 10 years, the sharpest Satoshis, the best Bitcoins, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists. Ben Arc from LNBits. Ben Arc: Hello. Good evening all. Thomas Hunt: Stephan Kinsella from the Property and Freedom Society. Hello. Stephan Kinsella: Hello. Thomas Hunt: Vlad Costea from Bitcoin Takeover magazine. Buy my Coldcard. And I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network. Moving on to issue one. Issue one. Citi raises Bitcoin Ether forecasts on strong crypto activity. Bitcoin Price Outlook 1:16 Thomas Hunt: Citigroup has raised its 12-month forecast for Bitcoin and Ether, citing stronger crypto activity, a supportive macroeconomic backdrop, and a resumption of ETF inflows. The brokerage increased its target for Bitcoin to $113,000 a coin, up from $82,000, and Ether to $3,028, up from $2,240. Ben Arc, it's always the price, the price, the price, the price of Bitcoin and Ethereum and other things. Ben, what do you think about the price of Bitcoin? Ben Arc: Everything's fine now. It's a few months. October. It's October. Usually happens this time of year. I think a lot of it is there's a lot of people are getting a bit twitchy around the AI bubble. Some of that junky capital's looking somewhere to go. People are seeing moves with Tether and Bitcoin and yeah, the ETF. I think it was the biggest inflows they'd had for a year. So you've also got, you know, inflation was a little bit cooler than people expected, the US inflation. You got weaker job market as well in the US. So it all points towards the price going up. But yeah, it's not like an extreme rally but as we all know once you can have that feedback loop where it just goes up and up and up particularly I think if there's some drop in the AI markets. I'm seeing a lot more FUD around AI and around the AI industry as well. And I think that inevitably the thing which people shift their capital into from AI is going to be Bitcoin. Thomas Hunt: Yeah, it's going up. It's funny, Ben. It's not just the intellectual capital of people like me and you and others spending all their time playing with AI. Soon it's the actual capital as people exit their stock investments for the chance to buy Anthropic, the chance to buy OpenAI, if it opens up or not. We'll have to see how it goes. Stephan Kinsella, what do you think about the price of Bitcoin? Everyone wants to know. Stephan Kinsella: I am happy with it. But when it hit $100,000 seems like a long time ago. What two years ago I think a group of us went to the French Laundry in California to celebrate. So I guess I'm looking forward to the chance to do that again. So we're not quite there. Thomas Hunt: Yeah. The main thing we're always looking for is like our friend Cryptographiti used to say, if you can get guacamole at Chipotle. If it's guacamole on time or guacamole off. I think we're about halfway to guacamole. Vlad Costea, what do you think about the price of Bitcoin this week? Vlad Costea: You know, two years ago when the first ETF was approved, we were promised that we're going to be in the hundreds of thousands and we're going to get bankers at our doors asking or begging us on their knees to sell our Bitcoin to them. And there's going to be this massive demand and the scarcity is going to kick in. We're going to be super rich. We're going to buy basically private jets with the dust that we had from transactions 10 years ago or something. None of that happened. I'm pretty sure that there's a lot of paper Bitcoin circulating that nobody wants to talk about and we just ignore this phenomenon. I also don't know what half the words in that article mean and that's part of the reason why I got into Bitcoin so I don't have to learn bankers' lingo and jargon. So, sorry for my ignorance, but I had greater expectations. Whoever is happy with what we're having is just being delusional. We should have had prices way up. Like, we were promised by Donald Trump. I know that this is part of the topics list, but he was going to be the best crypto president. What's going on? It seems like only the memecoin creators are enjoying anything because there's no SEC investigation into anything. So that's the extent he freed Ross, but now what? Like we have to just watch how a bunch of guys are getting rich and we're just stuck with Biden era prices. Come on, man. I thought you were making Bitcoin great again or whatever. Just tweet something. Pump our bags. Thomas Hunt: It does seem like a return to the prices and the values of old. No one really profited except maybe the insiders. But we got more on that coming up. But first, predicting against the magic eightball the truth of all power and prediction in this or any universe. Ben Arc, will the price of Bitcoin be higher or lower this time next week? Ben Arc: I mean, I think higher. This current epoch of price kind of reminds me of, you know, when we breached 10K and everyone was like, "Oh, it's never going to go into 10K again." and then it went into 10K and then it went over 10K and then we breached 20K and it's like ever going to go under 20K again and then it goes into 20K again then it goes over 20K again you can't imagine never going back to it but that's kind of what happened with 100K. Everyone says it's never going to go under 100K and then it goes under 100K and then slowly crawls its way back up so for now we're going up higher. Thomas Hunt: It does seem Ben like last time we had the big drawdown and you're looking at it and your terrible investment and everyone thinks you're stupid and your family's against you and you're like, why did I hold on to this stupid thing and then somehow it goes up and I look at it this time and I see it drop to what 65 or something awful and everyone's freaking out and your family thinks you're stupid and now we're holding it and it looks like it might be coming back at 80 again. It's the craziest thing. Stephan Kinsella, higher or lower this time next week? Stephan Kinsella: Well, you want the good news or the bad news first? Thomas Hunt: Always the good news. Stephan Kinsella: The good news is it's going to be higher. The bad news is I'm almost always wrong in the short term anyway. It's almost like Malkiel had a point about the random walk down Wall Street. Seems to be unpredictable at least in the short term. So I feel like it's going up,...

  3. Oct 13

    KOL502 | Abolish Intellectual Property? Stephan Kinsella on Objectively Speaking: Scarcity, Negative Servitudes, IP, Objectivism, AI Copyright, and Bitcoin Ownership

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 502. Cross-posted at PFS Blog. This is my conversation on Liquid Zulu's Twitter Space (@PunishedZulu), recorded Oct. 12, 2026. Topics discussed include why property rights require scarcity, the case against IP as non-consensual negative servitudes, critiques of Locke, Rand, and utilitarian arguments, Objectivism and Atlas Shrugged, AI training and copyright liability, international IP treaties, and whether Bitcoin can be owned. Update: See LiquidZulu vs. Liebowitz debating IP: Debating Michael Liebowitz on Intellectual Property (Oct. 24, 2026) https://www.youtube.com/live/QSYHSWXYIsk?si=_d7b1wxAv51OKDt4 It’s time to announce the topic of our next Objectively Speaking episode! 🎙️ This time, we’ll be discussing Intellectual Property with a very special guest, @NSKinsella. Hosted as always by @PunishedZulu, @eduardoyanez__, and me. 📅 Monday, October 12th ⏰ 4:30 PM Eastern Time Location: Twitter Space/Zulu’s YT stream Hope to see you there! — thisissu (@Eudaimoniang) October 7, 2026 Related KOL454 | Debating Various Issues of Interest to Objectivists and Libertarians on The Rational Egoist (Michael Liebowitz) KOL451 | Debating the Nature of Rights on The Rational Egoist (Michael Liebowitz) Kinsella, Mises and Rand (and Rothbard) The Problem with Intellectual Property. Stephan Kinsella, Papinian Press Occasional Paper, No. 2 (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, May 15, 2025) [v.1.1]. ISBN Ebook 979-8-9890306-8-2. — Kinsella’s most recent and comprehensive short presentation of the case against patents and copyrights, covering scarcity, negative servitudes, and why IP is incompatible with libertarian property rights. Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes. Stephan Kinsella, C4SIF Blog (June 2011). — Explains the core argument from the episode that IP grants are non-consensual negative servitudes restricting the use of others’ already-owned scarce resources. The Mountain of IP Legislation. Stephan Kinsella, C4SIF Blog (November 2010). — Documents the extensive and growing body of IP statutes, illustrating the arbitrary, legislated nature of patent and copyright terms discussed in the episode. Against Intellectual Property. N. Stephan Kinsella, Journal of Libertarian Studies 15, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 1–53; later issued as a monograph by the Ludwig von Mises Institute (2008) and Laissez Faire Books (2012). — The classic systematic libertarian case against IP, including critiques of natural-rights and utilitarian justifications. Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward. Stephan Kinsella, chapter 15 of Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023); also available at C4SIF. — Reflects on the original AIP arguments, updates them, and discusses the shift in libertarian opinion against IP over two decades. Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society. Stephan Kinsella, Libertarian Papers 5, no. 1 (2013): 1–44; updated version appears as chapter 14 of Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023). — Comprehensive treatment of why IP cannot exist in a free, private-law order based on self-ownership, homesteading, and contract. The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide. Stephan Kinsella, Mises Daily (September 4, 2009). — Short, accessible overview of the main arguments against IP, including the failure of both deontological and utilitarian defenses. The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright. Stephan Kinsella, C4SIF Blog (October 23, 2012); also chapter 31 of The Anti-IP Reader (Papinian Press, 2023). — Collects studies (including Machlup and others) showing no clear evidence that patents or copyrights produce net gains in innovation, relevant to the utilitarian discussion. Intellectual Property and Libertarianism. Stephan Kinsella, Mises Daily (November 17, 2009); earlier version in Liberty 23, no. 11 (December 2009). — Explains the tension between IP and core libertarian principles of property and the non-aggression principle, with discussion of Randian and other creationist views. Nobody Owns Bitcoin. Stephan Kinsella, StephanKinsella.com (April 21, 2021). — Article version of the argument that Bitcoin ledger entries are not ownable scarce resources; control via private keys is distinct from property rights, matching the episode discussion. KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019). Stephan Kinsella, Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 274 (Property and Freedom Society, 2019). — Full talk elaborating why Bitcoin cannot be the subject of property rights under a scarcity-based theory of ownership. Key IP Resources and Publications. Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF). — Curated collection of Kinsella’s major books, articles, and speeches on IP, including links to Legal Foundations of a Free Society and related works. IP Chapters of Legal Foundations of a Free Society. Stephan Kinsella, C4SIF Blog (September 23, 2023), discussing Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023). — Overview of the several chapters in Kinsella’s 2023 book that develop the property-rights foundations and case against IP in greater depth. A Succinct Case Against IP: Libertarians Have No Excuse Anymore. Stephan Kinsella, C4SIF Blog (May 31, 2025). — Recent short statement reinforcing that IP is a non-consensual negative easement and that libertarians have no remaining principled basis for defending it. Yet Another Randian Recants on IP. Stephan Kinsella, C4SIF Blog (February 2012). — Discusses Objectivist responses to anti-IP arguments and examples of Randians who have come to reject intellectual property. The Intellectual Property Quagmire, or, The Perils of Libertarian Creationism. Stephan Kinsella, speech/article (2008/2010); available at C4SIF. — Critiques the “creationist” view (common in some Randian and Lockean arguments) that creation is a source of property rights. Libertarian Answer Man: Bitcoin and Fraud. Stephan Kinsella, StephanKinsella.com (March 14, 2024). — Addresses practical implications of the view that Bitcoin is not ownable, including fraud, trespass, and remedies when private keys are misused. Introduction to the Laissez Faire Books Edition of Against Intellectual Property. Stephan Kinsella, C4SIF Blog (June 22, 2012). — Foreword-style overview of the core thesis of AIP and its place in the broader libertarian debate over IP. Grok shownotes: In this episode of Objectively Speaking, hosts Liquid Zulu, Su, and Edardo Yanes interview libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella on intellectual property. Kinsella explains his shift from initially accepting Ayn Rand’s defense of IP to concluding that patents and copyrights are incompatible with property rights. He argues that all human action requires scarce physical resources guided by knowledge, and that rights arise only to resolve conflicts over those resources through self-ownership, homesteading, and contractual transfer. Kinsella contends that IP is not ownership of ideas but a non-consensual negative servitude that restricts how others may use their already-owned factories, printing presses, or other resources. He rejects both natural-rights arguments (including Locke’s labor theory of property and Randian “creationism”) and utilitarian market-failure claims. He notes that finite patent and copyright terms are arbitrary, that empirical evidence does not support net gains in innovation, and that pharmaceuticals are among the worst cases for IP because monopoly pricing and FDA barriers restrict access to life-saving goods. The discussion turns to Objectivism. Zulu, an Objectivist who opposes IP, argues that Rand’s non-fiction treated law as secondary to politics and presupposed a state, while her fiction (especially Atlas Shrugged) is more consistent with a scarcity-based view of property. Kinsella adds that Rand’s emphasis on physical force as the sole means of rights violation undercuts her support for patent rights as “the heart and core” of property. Later segments address AI training and copyright liability, the rise of potential copyright trolls, international IP treaties and “IP imperialism,” and open-source licenses. Kinsella also addresses Bitcoin, maintaining that one controls entries on a ledger via private keys but does not own Bitcoin as property in the same sense as scarce physical resources. The episode closes with Kinsella’s assessment that principled libertarian opinion has shifted strongly against IP over the past two decades. Key sections include Introduction and Setup (0:02) Defining the Problem (6:06) Property and Scarcity / The Case Against IP (8:06–14:19) Negative Servitudes (20:57) Critiquing IP Arguments (25:52) Utilitarian Fallacies (33:05) Value and Ownership (47:35) Objectivism and Law (1:08:46) Atlas Shrugged and IP (1:15:35) AI and Copyright (1:22:26) Arbitrary IP Laws (1:34:05) Global IP Enforcement (1:47:20) Bitcoin and Ownership (1:54:51) Trespass and Fraud (2:04:35) Closing Thoughts (2:15:33) Transcript below. Related Andreas Tank: LiquidZulu’s Attempt to Debate Dave Smith Haman: David Friedman, LiquidZulu, and two errors in understanding the Non-Aggression Principle LiquidZulu’s Free Course: “The Fundamentals of Libertarian Ethics” Haman vs. Zulu: Martians, Stealing Candy Bars, Rights, Law, Morality https://www.youtube.com/live/9xMQzSt9EP0?si=Z1-MI6Zdt9BZd_aa Transcript (Grok cleanup) Objectively Speaking: Stephan Kinsella on Intellectual Property Cleaned transcript of the interview with Stephan Kinsella, hosted by Liquid Zulu, Su, and Edardo Yanes. Recorded as a Twitter Space / YouTube live stream. YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xMQzSt9EP0 Introduction and Setup 0:02 Zulu: Hello. Hello. Hello....

  4. Oct 7

    KOL501 | Stephan Kinsella (The Kinsellanator) returns to dispense some White Pills, with Mark Maresca of The White Pillbox: Próspera and Free Cities, PFS, Helsinki, Bitcoin, Why the State Is Fragile, Way-Station Libertarians, Anarchism, and IP

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 501. This is my discussion with Mark Maresca, of The White Pillbox, about my recent travels: episode. (Previous episode: Kinsella as “White Pill”: Maresca, “From the White-PillBox: Part 29. Achilles Heel edition 3”; KOL473 | The Universal Principles of Liberty, with Mark Maresca of The White Pillbox.) My shirt (from the PFS Merch Store): Mark's Shownotes: No, it’s not a new WWF hero. It’s Stephan Kinsella (the Kinsellanator) returning to the White Pillbox, to smash a folding chair over the head of statism. Together we bob and weave across the landscape of libertarianism and the transition to a free society. And we see tangible building blocks forming, as Stephan discusses the three important conferences he recently attended: The Free Cities Conference held in Prospera Honduras, the Property and Freedom Society annual conference in Bodrum, Turkey, and The 2026 Bitcoin Conference held in Helsinki Finland. Stephan Kinsella is an intellectual property attorney and a major contributor to libertarian thought and scholarship. His work is consolidated at his main website: https://stephankinsella.com/ Just a handful of his publications include: Against Intellectual Property: https://c4sif.org/aip/ Legal Foundations of a Free Society: https://stephankinsella.com/lffs/ The Universal Principles of Liberty: https://stephankinsella.com/principles/ Check out Stephan’s podcast Kinsella On Liberty: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... Links to the organizations of the events he attended: The Free Cities Foundation: https://free-cities.org/ The Property and Freedom Society: https://propertyandfreedom.org/ The Nordic Bitcoin Conference held in Helsinki, Finland, 2026: https://btchel.com/ Other general items we covered: The Great Fiction, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Fiction-... https://youtu.be/YR9EficG7MQ?si=jSLbmlweC4DZg9f9 Related The Golden Age of America is Now (March 14, 2013)  Shownotes (Grok) Kinsella reported on three recent trips: the Free Cities Conference in Próspera, the Property and Freedom Society’s 20th meeting in Bodrum, and the Nordic Bitcoin Conference in Helsinki. He liked the people at Próspera and may return, though he doubts the project will become a tech metropolis. A debate on intellectual property, moderated by Alex Voss, stayed polite but thin. He still sees most seasteading and startup-country schemes as long shots, including Liberland and unflagged floating nations, and is more interested in places like Brunei or a UAE common-law zone. The Free State Project will not free New Hampshire, and he would not move there just to live among libertarians. What struck him is how large and segmented the liberty world has become: Austrians, the Libertarian Party, the Tom Woods crowd, Hoppe’s PFS, free cities, and Bitcoin, overlapping and feeding one another. His “way-station libertarians” are activists who arrive through a frustration, often Ron Paul, and leave. Since 2008 the movement is bigger, more anarchist, and less well read, but anarchism is now the default, and younger grounded libertarians sound more optimistic than his generation did. A working enclave would undercut the claim that without the state people descend into cannibalism. He also thinks drug legalization overpromised. Maresca argued that the state is personnel-limited and more fragile than it looks, using a dance-floor metaphor for how fast disobedience could spread. Kinsella agreed: the Soviet collapse, COVID, BlackBerry, Kodak, and bond markets show that what looks inevitable can fail quickly. He doubts another lockdown would be tolerated, and dislikes governors taking credit for opposing lockdowns they first imposed. On Hoppe, the future is uncertain but not radically so. Praxeology constrains forecasts without guaranteeing them. Both treated rising cynicism about doctors, cops, and Congress as realism, and statism as a scam best met with mockery. Bitcoin, he said, cannot go to zero and cannot sit still, so “up” is the logical bet, though still a long shot he would not stake everything on. Cash still works for spending, so Lightning and ease of use can wait. Fungibility is holding. Anonymity is the gap. Helsinki was Bitcoin-maxi and lighter on scammers than altcoin events. At PFS, Guido Hülsmann was the lone gold bug. Finland’s economics minister, Sakari Puisto, met Kinsella, Adam Back, Martti Malmi, and others for two hours on tax, innovation, IP, mining, and AI. A normie heard “Hoppe” as ABBA. PFS remains the highlight: a salon plus Club Med, Hans’s wife’s family’s hotel, late starts, long lunches, and a beach day at the Kempinski. People from constrained countries can speak freely. Coming releases include the Knut Svanholm interview, the Free Cities speech, the Helsinki panel with Rahim Taghizadegan, and a PFS talk on Adolf Reinach. Next he wants to write Copy This Book, a full IP treatment. Maresca credited that work with pulling him off the Galambos view of intellectual property. Kinsella closed by showing the PFS shirt: Schwarzenegger was the Governator; he is the Kinsellanator. Transcript (Grok) Stephan Kinsella (The Kinsellanator) Returns to Dispense Some White Pills Mark Maresca interviewing Stephan Kinsella, The White Pillbox. Opening 0:00:08 Announcer: You're skeptical of the state. You're getting over the myth of authority. But the state is still formidable. Or is it? You've got a front row seat in the transition to a free society. Let's dive headfirst into the White Pillbox with your host, Mark Maresca. Welcome and Introductions 0:00:28 Mark Maresca: Greetings all. Thank you so much for joining today. Today I'm happy to welcome back as my guest, Stephan Kinsella. Stephan, great to have you here. Stephan Kinsella: Hey Mark, glad to be here. Mark Maresca: In case any of you are not familiar with Stephan, he's an intellectual property attorney and a major contributor to libertarian thought and scholarship. Just a few of his publications include Against Intellectual Property, Legal Foundations of a Free Society, and The Universal Principles of Liberty. And you can see all his work via his main website, StephanKinsella.com, which will be provided in the show notes. Stephan, you're back from a whirlwind tour that took you to, among other things, three major conferences around the world, and I want to hear about your experiences and your take on them today. They were the Free Cities Conference held in Próspera, Honduras, the Property and Freedom Society annual conference in Bodrum, Turkey, and the Nordic Bitcoin Conference held in Helsinki, Finland. So if you don't mind kicking it off, just your overall impression of the first one, the Free Cities Conference. Free Cities in Próspera, and a Near Miss at Miami 0:01:27 Stephan Kinsella: Yeah, Free Cities was great. I went to their events and I think they alternate between Prague and some other city. And last year I happened to go to Prague for the first time ever and enjoyed it. And I also went back to Prague for the Liberland Christmas party. And I happened to visit Próspera, which is in Honduras, last year when I was on the Tom Woods cruise last year. And we took a side trip to Próspera, or Roatán in Honduras. And so when I heard that the Free Cities event was in Honduras, and it was at Próspera, I thought I would go. And plus I figured it would be a short plane ride from Houston to Honduras, and I didn't realize, well, when I booked my ticket, they said that, oh, you had to go through Miami. There was no direct flight. So I went through Miami, saw my buddy, and interestingly I was coming home from Miami on that Sunday after the event, and everyone there, I was saying they were about to fly home through Houston to other countries. And I said, why are you going through Houston? Doesn't it take two flights? And they said, no, there's a direct flight. So somehow I missed the fact that there was a direct flight. So I changed my flight on that Sunday, which was going through Miami on American. I changed it to United to go home directly. And that was the day that there was that disaster at Miami Airport, where that plane overshot the runway and hit those cars. So I'm glad that I heard from these people, because I would have been in the air on an American flight when the airport was shut down. I don't know where I would have ended up. So I'm glad I missed that excitement. But some people I know were there, some friends I know were there, and I did a debate, which is not my normal type of debate, against a fellow patent lawyer, an Irish patent lawyer from California, on intellectual property, moderated by Alex Voss, which went over well. We were both polite to each other. I think he just didn't really have a good argument. It was more like just spouting the let's-be-moderate kind of stuff, you know, like let's not go to extremes. But, like, okay, he didn't really have a—I honestly, I couldn't tell you what his argument was. Something like let's not be extreme. Mark Maresca: Yeah. Yeah, it was more along those lines. I think prior to that you had almost hoped that he had something more meaty there, but I listened to it too, live, and was like, yeah, that's a little more typical. A Richer, Segmented Liberty Movement 0:04:05 Stephan Kinsella: Yeah, but, well, I mean, I was interested to hear. You know, I've been a little bit dismissive in the past of all these libertarian seasteading projects and Project Lifeboat, because there's always one thing after the other, and they're usually vaporware, or they're half the time hoaxes, like Galt's Gulch Chile. But my impression is that, I mean, look, I do all kinds of things over the world and over the last decades, and it's amazing to me that if you take the perspective of forty or fifty years ago, that we have such a rich international and multi-segmented liberty space. You've got the Austrians, like Mises Institute...

  5. Sep 30

    KOL500 | Libertad Individual Interview: Rothbard’s Framework, Legal Theory, Property Rights, Contract, Intellectual Property, Corporations, and More

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 500. Jorge Muñoz, host of the Libertad Individual Youtube channel, interviewed me recently: The Case Against Intellectual Property (Sept. 3, 2026; recorded Sept. 1, 2026). Shownotes and transcript below. See also Hülsmann and Kinsella: Libertad Individual Interviews: The Ethics of Money Production , Rothbard’s Framework, Intellectual Property, Corporations …  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRaylVL2ptc Shownotes: Join us for a live conversation with renowned libertarian legal scholar, patent attorney, and author Stephan Kinsella. We dive deep into the foundations of libertarian legal theory, the fundamental flaws of Intellectual Property (IP), and how genuine property rights are rooted in natural rights and Austrian Economics. Whether you are passionate about the history of patents, the legacy of Murray Rothbard, or the future of freedom in the digital age, this is a conversation you won't want to miss. t Topics discussed in this stream: The philosophical and economic case against Intellectual Property. How the history of patents contradicts true property rights. Praxeology, natural rights, and the privatization of law. State monopolies, CBDCs, and the defense of financial liberty. The lasting impact of Murray Rothbard's legal framework. Books Mentioned Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) Human Action by Ludwig von Mises “Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe: An Indispensable Framework,” in Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment, Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, eds. (Papinian Press and The Saif House, 2026). The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman The Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard The Enterprise of Law by Bruce Benson Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick In Defense of the Corporation by Robert Hessen Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles by Jesús Huerta de Soto (He doesn't mention the exact title, but references Soto's chapters clarifying Roman law treatment of commodatum, mutuum, and irregular vs. regular deposits). It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand by Jerome Tuccille Websites & Links stephankinsella.com – Stephan Kinsella's official website where he hosts his work and books for free. The Universal Principles of Liberty propertyandfreedom.org – The official website of the Property and Freedom Society, which Kinsella manages and where you can find work by him, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and other Rothbardian Austrians. Specific Articles/Blog Posts by Kinsella "Areas That Need Development from Libertarian Thinkers" "Disentangling Legal and Economic Concepts" "Where I've Changed My Mind" (Mentioning his shifts in thought regarding Bruno Leoni, F.A. Hayek, immigration, and intellectual property). Timestamps: 00:00 - Introduction & New Book Announcements 01:40 - Murray Rothbard's Legacy & Influence 06:05 - Kinsella's Journey to Anarcho-Capitalism 11:27 - Why Legal Theory Matters for Libertarianism 18:07 - Debating Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery 28:32 - Debt Contracts and Future Title Transfers 35:21 - Corporations & Limited Liability in a Free Society 46:41 - Evaluating Javier Milei's Presidency 50:01 - The Case Against Intellectual Property 56:37 - Unresolved Issues in Libertarian Theory (Banking & Bitcoin) 1:07:44 - Final Thoughts & Recommendations Update: https://youtu.be/eUxne_xm5SE?si=WvC9guYOA23eCXRz @miguelhzv @NSKinsella Kinsella: https://t.co/PGk7wY1ZCD Hulsmann: https://t.co/9t6NVZRcaz — Jorge Muñoz (@jorgemmunoz) October 19, 2026 Transcript Introduction & New Book Announcements 00:00 Jorge Muñoz: Hello everyone. Today we have a very special guest. Today we are with Stephan Kinsella. He's the author of this book that many of you know, Against Intellectual Property. And he had another book that is much bigger, that is Legal Foundations of a Free Society. And well, we had—yeah, there it is. It's pretty almost like Human Action. Stephan Kinsella: Yeah. I have a Spanish copy coming out. I just got the proof of it. So it will be released in Spanish on like Amazon or something pretty soon in the next month, I think, next weeks. Jorge Muñoz: That's great. So when that's live, I will upload it in the description. And well, today we have a lot of topics to speak about. But Kinsella, maybe in the Spanish-speaking libertarian world, is better known about the intellectual property. But well, the other day there was a streaming about Rothbard's 100th anniversary, and you spoke also about the theory of contracts. There is the book by the Property and Freedom Society, I believe, edited by you and Hoppe. Nice that I read some chapters, and that's great. You are in the year of Rothbard, and well, we can start with that maybe. What did Rothbard mean for you when you started, and what do you think is important about him today? Is he still relevant? Murray Rothbard's Legacy & Influence 01:40 Stephan Kinsella: Yeah. So I open my chapter in the book—Hans Hoppe and I decided to do this collection of essays in Rothbard's honor because his birthday, his 100th birthday, was this year. And so we released the book on that day. And then we also had a nice—the Mises Portugal and some other groups under Manuel Ogando had a nice one-day conference with about 400 people, some Portuguese, some Brazilians, some Spanish, some Europeans, some Americans, in Porto back in June. And in my chapter, it's called “Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe: The Indispensable Framework,” which is using the dedication Rothbard used for a couple of his books, where he dedicated it to his wife, talking about how she was sort of the background framework for his work, because she was his sort of support system in his life. But I used it as an homage to that, but to point out, to emphasize what was the most—look, there's lots of important thinkers that we assemble when we come to our view of liberty. But I wanted to focus on what I think are the most important three to me and to sound libertarian thinking, and that's Rothbard, Mises, and Hoppe, with Rothbard being the central figure. Sort of he is the bridge between the two. Hoppe is sort of building upon Mises and Rothbard and integrating the two. But what Rothbard did was he integrated radical libertarian politics and anarchism with Mises's radical subjectivist and praxeological approach to economics and Austrian economics. So I believe Rothbard, because he made so much progress in developing ideas of liberty, libertarianism in the 20th century, as well as Austrian economics and promoting it, which are the two most essential disciplines to know for a sound understanding of politics. Of course you also need logic and history and scientific literacy and all that, political philosophy, sociology. But the two most important would be—you know, and math too, things like that. But the two most important would be economics and political philosophy, the nature of the state and the nature of human existence. So Rothbard—and he also was briefly in the Ayn Rand circles. And Ayn Rand, I think—look, as much criticism as Ayn Rand receives, and much of it deservedly so, because she was wrong on intellectual property, she was confused on rights, and she was not an anarchist—but still her overall worldview in general terms I think is correct, and Rothbard basically shares it, which is the four main tenets of her philosophy. Which is objective reality: reality exists. And epistemology: that we can—we have reason; the faculty of reason and the senses allow us to know reality and to understand it—which both of which I agree with, and which I think Rothbard did too. And then her ethics was like every man has the right to live for himself. That's rational self-interest or egoism, or she called it selfishness, which I think again just corresponds to individualism or the individual-centered view of social existence. And finally politics: she called it capitalism; we call it libertarianism. Those are all basically right. And Rothbard built on those, integrated them with Austrian economics, and made it more radical by adopting the anarchism. Kinsella's Journey to Anarcho-Capitalism 06:05 So for me, you know, I became interested in libertarian ideas when I read Ayn Rand in high school back in 1979 or so, so a long time ago now. And I was really into the Objectivist philosophy for quite a while. But I kept seeing the Libertarian Party pamphlets on campus at my college, and Ayn Rand had dismissed them as not being pro-liberty. So I initially assumed she was right, but I kept reading their pamphlets and they look very similar to my Objectivist politics and economics. And so I finally started reading Rothbard and Mises and Hazlitt and Bastiat and so many others—David Friedman, the Tannehills. And basically, you know, by the time I was in law school I had become a full-fledged Rothbardian anarchist. Now I would say that what opened my eyes to the error of Objectivism, which is the belief—so they believe in individual rights and economic free-market economics, but they still thought that a state was justified and necessary, albeit a minimal state. But, you know, you can sense something's wrong with that. I mean, there's an old joke that what's the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist, and it's about six months. Well, that might be true nowadays when there's lots of YouTube videos and you can move quickly from just internet discussions and things like that. But, you know, back before the internet, things were a little slower moving. It took me six, seven, eight years to become an anarchist. But anyway, I did it because I read books like David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom,...

  6. Sep 26

    KOL499 | “Why is Austrian Economics Important?” BTCHEL Helsinki

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 499. I was invited by Knut Svanholm months ago (I appeared on his show earlier this year; see KOL484 | Praxeology, Property Rights & Bitcoin: Bitcoin Infinity Show #192, with Knut Svanholm) to participate in the Nordic Bitcoin Conference, or BTCHEL (perma) in Helsinki. I appeared earlier this morning on the panel "Why is Austrian Economics Important?" [bio], along with Knut and Rahim Taghizadegan, moderated by Thomas Brand of Coinmotion. Our panel topic description: Subjective value, time preference, and sound money: the Austrian ideas that keep surfacing in Bitcoin arguments. What the school actually claims, where it is genuinely contested including by other Austrians, and what any of it tells you about the money you are holding. See also BTCHEL 2026 brings Bitcoin pioneers and 65+ speakers to Helsinki, Bitcoin News; and from the Nordic Node newsletter: Straight from the Sauna BTCHEL is a non-scammy Bitcoin event, in case you didn’t know. Right after Stephan Kinsella talked about the wonders of sauna in Finland — yes, this great libertarian lawyer, philosopher, and author graced us with his presence last month! — he said, about BTCHEL 2026: “I just had the vibe that it wasn’t quite as scammy as the Bitcoin Miami thing I’ve been to…” Music. To. Our. Ears. I was wrong... this 2-hour convo between @knutsvanholm and @NSKinsella was MARVELLOUS: intellectual property, whether bitcoin can be _owned_, a history (and update) on the splits in the worldwide libertarian crowd. Minimum Knut/Infinity Show trolling, max value. LOVED IT — Joakim Book (@joakimbook) October 21, 2026 I recorded it on my iphone, so my audio sounds clearest; professional video and audio to be posted later. *** More photos at Facebook. with Adam Back   with Giacamo Zucco Followup tweets: It was a great panel. Unfortunately, it could have been a bit longer, but the program was tight, so there was no time for social chitchat or Q&A. 😅 It was "carefully" planned, and the perfect execution was just a matter of orchestrating human action. 😉 — Thomas 'Brrr' ₿rand (@thlbr) September 29, 2026 I spoke about the Austrian School, in a keynote and on a panel with @NSKinsella and @knutsvanholm. One of the rare panels without disagreement that was still stimulating enough to keep me from trolling. That is thanks to the excellent preparation of our moderator @thlbr. — Rahim Taghizadegan (scholarium.at) (@scholarium_at) September 29, 2026 Despite conference inflation, I accepted the invitation to @btchelevent: Finland was the only European country I had not yet visited. My impression: it could represent the best of Europe. Unfortunately, on Bitcoin mining it makes mistakes as grave as other EU countries. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/Ow705HcoJm — Rahim Taghizadegan (scholarium.at) (@scholarium_at) September 29, 2026 Professionally organised by @btcbenchmark and @lukedewolf. Luke himself was absent for the best of reasons: he was securing the future of Bitcoin, as his child was born almost at the same time as the conference. — Rahim Taghizadegan (scholarium.at) (@scholarium_at) September 29, 2026 And #BTCHEL had the best breakout sessions of any conference: in a real sauna. The Finnish weather was, unfortunately, well suited to them. — Rahim Taghizadegan (scholarium.at) (@scholarium_at) September 29, 2026 On the last day I finally saw Helsinki in the sun. A few minutes from the city centre there is a beautiful sandy beach. Why is it completely empty on a sunny Sunday afternoon after a week of rain? Finnish culture remains a mystery. pic.twitter.com/5LYhT5V4m5 — Rahim Taghizadegan (scholarium.at) (@scholarium_at) September 29, 2026

  7. Sep 20

    KOL498 | Adolf Reinach and his “On the Concept of Causality in the Criminal Law”

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 498 This is my speech delivered this morning at the 2026 Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society: Adolf Reinach and his "On the Concept of Causality in the Criminal Law." It is based in part on Kinsella, "Causation and Aggression," Hoppe, “Property, Causality, and Liability,” and Reinach, “On The Concept of Causality in the Criminal Law.” This recording is from my own iPhone. Professional video and audio will follow in due course. [I have now added the video and improved audio. 10/19/2026] https://youtu.be/50ArhGyTISY Related Reinach, “On The Concept of Causality in the Criminal Law” Kinsella, "Causation and Aggression," in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) Based on Stephan Kinsella and Patrick Tinsley, “Causation and Aggression,” Q. J. Austrian Econ. 7, no. 4 (Winter 2004): 97–112 Kinsella, Causation, Aggression, the Law, and Reinach Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Property, Causality, and Liability,” Q. J. Austrian Econ. 7, no. 4 (Winter 2004): 87–95, reprinted in Hoppe, The Great Fiction: Property, Economy, Society, and the Politics of Decline, Second Expanded Edition (Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, 2021) Jörg Guido Hülsmann, “The A Priori Foundations of Property Economics,” Q. J. Austrian Econ. 7, no. 4 (Winter 2004): 41–68 Larry J. Sechrest, “Praxeology, Economics, and Law: Issues and Implications,” Q. J. Austrian Econ. 7, no. 4 (Winter 2004): 19–40 Walter Block, “Austrian Law and Economics: The Contributions of Adolf Reinach and Murray Rothbard,” Q. J. Austrian Econ. 7, no. 4 (Winter 2004): 69–85 Leo Zailbert, “Toward Meta-Politics,” Q. J. Austrian Econ. 7, no. 4 (Winter 2004): 113–28 Barry Smith, “An Essay on Material Necessity,” in Philip Hanson & Bruce Hunter, eds., Return of the A Priori (Canadian J. Philosophy, Supplementary Volume 18, 1993): 301–322 Barry Smith and Wojciech Żełaniec, “Laws of Essence or Constitutive Rules? Reinach vs. Searle on the Ontology of Social Entities,” in Francesca De Vecchi, ed., Eidetica del Diritto e Ontologia Sociale. Il Realismo di Adolf Reinach (Milan: Mimesis, 2012): 83–108 Alessandro Fusillo (Italy): Adolf Reinach and his “A Priori Foundations of the Civil Law” Adolf Reinach’s “The Apriori Foundations of the Civil Law”. My Speech Notes Adolf Reinach and his “On the Concept of Causality in the Criminal Law” Stephan Kinsella Property and Freedom Society 2026 Annual Meeting Bodrum, Turkey Sept. 17–22, 2026 1905 a special year: Einstein’s “Miracle Year”: Photoelectric effect—light comes in packets, launched quantum Brownian motion—proved atoms Special relativity—space and time bend with speed. And E equals mc squared—mass-energy equivalence. Today let’s talk about a German from the last century with a mustache. Named Adolf. No, not the famous one. Adolf Reinach was born in 1883, died at 33 in 1917 fighting on the German side in WWI. A brilliant thinker, a phenomenologist and legal theorist, and was the closest pre-war collaborator of the famous phenomenologist Edmund Husserl He published a number of important works from about 1905 to 1914, when he joined the German army in WWI and was killed in action three years later, in 1917 Today we have two talks on two of his most important works, at least for Austro-libertarians. Alessandro has spoken already about his 1913 monograph on the a priori foundations of civil law, published when he was about 30 years old. See also my 2017 PFS talk: KOL225 | Reflections on the Theory of Contract (PFS 2017) and my topic is inspired by his 1905 dissertation “On the Concept of Causality in the Criminal Law” Also Einstein’s Miracle Year this paper was a major inspiration for my article “Causation and Aggression” and for Hans Hoppe’s article “Property, Causality, and Liability,” both published in 2004 in the QJAE and each based on our contributions to the 2001 I can only begin to give an overview of Reinach and some of the insights I and Hoppe have extracted from his dissertation For more details, see our 2004 papers; + Alessandro’s His 9-10 year publishing career, all in his 20s, also included interesting and important papers on William James and pragmatism; Kant and Hume on causality and necessity; judgment and the ontology of states of affairs; the phenomenology of deliberation and its ethical and legal significance; a critique of Natorp’s psychology; and a 1914 lecture on phenomenology that distinguishes his realist approach from Husserl’s later transcendental idealism It is quite incredible that Husserl is still relevant today, a century later; as Einstein is As Barry Smith, a libertarian thinker and prominent ontologist who has helped to promote interest in Reinach’s work, told me recently, interest in Reinach has been growing in recent years For example: “There has just been established a working group on the ontology of law, where Reinach is accepted as one fundamental influence.” “If you follow Adolf Reinach on google scholar, some 920 papers are identified since 2022. …” Grok thinks this is a bit imprecise, but… good enough for government work, as we say Part of this is also the continued interest in Searle’s work and increasing awareness of the ways in which Searle’s and Reinach’s ideas overlap. Reinach: theory of social acts; Searle: speech acts. (Grok) Reinach is of interest to me, and other Misesian Austrians, because of his work on legal theory, causation, and applications of Kant’s apriori methodology to social theory It is well known that one significant group of libertarians— Ayn Rand and Objectivists—despised Kant because of his so-called “idealism” Now as Hoppe has conceded, Kant was a somewhat murky thinker and Rand was perhaps relying on second-hand accounts and interpretations of Kant by the more “idealist” American Kantians Hoppe, My Discovery of Human Action and of Mises as a Philosopher Bruce Goldberg “Ayn Rand’s ‘For the New Intellectual’” (1961) Kinsella, “The Undeniable Morality of Capitalism” But there is a more “realist” school of Kant on the continent g., the philosopher Peter Janich Hoppe, My Discovery of Human Action and of Mises as a Philosopher Kinsella, A Visit with Hoppe: Touch, Janich, AI, Being Interviewed, Bankruptcy, Money and Demonstrated Preference; KOL461 | Haman Nature Hn 119: Atheism, Objectivism & Artificial Intelligence Mises employed Kantian terminology in his use of apriori concepts Mises drew on aspects of Kant’s framework that are compatible with realism As Hoppe has shown in his Economic Science and the Austrian Method, Misesian “Kantian” praxeology is realistic [SKIP THE FOLLOWING DEPENDING ON TIME] Not to be confused with Hoppe’s other interesting distinction between right- and left-libertarianism, that the right is essentially realistic in recognizing differences, natural authority, hierarchies, elites, whereas the left is unrealistic and egalitarian— and so libertarianism is a realistic “right” libertarianism Hoppe, A Realistic Libertarianism [END SKIP] Interestingly, just as some Kantians (Mises, Hoppe) are realistic, and others more idealistic, after 1913 or so, Husserl turned toward transcendental idealism, and the phenomenology movement split into realists (Reinach, and others), who argued for a world that does not depend on consciousness (Ayn Rand would approve), and transcendental idealists (Heidegger, Sartre, and Derrida, and others) The leading realist phenomenologist, Reinach applied that method to social acts, law, judgment, and motion. Studies on motion: calls to mind Peter Janich’s aprioristic “protophysics,” e.g. Protophysics of Time; Euclid’s Heritage: Is Space Three-Dimensional? Before the somewhat recent resurgence of interest in Reinach’s ideas, there had been awareness of and interest in Reinach by various Austrians, including Barry Smith, who has a deep interest in libertarianism, Austrian economics, and ontology And so it came to be that Guido Hülsmann organized a Mises Institute international symposium on “Reinach and Rothbard” in 2001. In addition to Guido, the Director, the symposium included presentations by Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Larry J. Sechrest, Barry Smith, and myself Some of these and related articles were published along with others in a symposium issue of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, in 2004 Two of these, by Hans and myself, focused mainly on Reinach’s 1905 dissertation “On the Concept of Causality in the Criminal Law,” the main focus of my talk today These are: Kinsella, "Causation and Aggression" and Hoppe, “Property, Causality, and Liability” INCIDENTALLY: I ended up publishing a previously-unpublished translation of this dissertation, by Danish-American philosopher Berit Brogaard, with the assistance of Barry Smith (who was her PhD advisor), in the first volume of my journal Libertarian Papers, in 2009 Coincidentally, Reinach’s 1913 paper “The Apriori Foundations of the Civil Law,” already discussed by Alessandro, is not very accessible It had been translated by the American philosopher John F. Crosby, and published in Aletheia in 1983. It was recently republished in Adolf Reinach, The Apriori Foundations of the Civil Law: Along with the Lecture “Concerning Phenomenology,” John F. Crosby, with a foreword by Alasdair MacIntyre (Ontos Verlag, 2012; now De Gruyter), but a good version is not readily available online Just last week, Barry Smith put me in touch with the translator, John Crosby, and supported my request for permission to reprint this important paper online in our Property and F

  8. Sep 7

    KOL497 | Debate: “Should Free Cities Protect Intellectual Property?” Free Cities Foundation Annual Conference — Próspera, Honduras 2026

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 497. Yesterday (Sep. 5, 2026) I participated in the debate: “Should Free Cities Protect Intellectual Property?” with IP attorney Brian O’Beirne, moderated by Tipolis CFO Alex Voss, at the Free Cities Foundation annual Conference, Próspera, Honduras, Sept. 4–7 (Sat. Sept. 5, 2026) (SK profile; O'Beirne profile) (see Free Cities Foundation Annual Conference — Próspera 2026). Topic was billed as: "Is the concept of intellectual property ethically defensible? And: do Free Cities have more to gain or lose by upholding internationally recognised intellectual property standards?" https://youtu.be/4GWPdxnpCOI I spoke for 4 minutes, then Brian, and then we had an exchange and audience questions for the remaining time. It was very civil unlike some other debates I've participated in. (( KOL038 | Debate with Robert Wenzel on Intellectual Property; KOL123 | Debate with Jan Helfeld on Anarchy vs. Limited Government. )) One thing I liked is that Brian started off admitting, first, that he has some sympathy for my anti-IP position, and, second, that he acknowledged that opposition to IP is the libertarian position--unlike other libertarian IP proponents who claim that IP rights are compatible with libertarianism, if not the "heart and core" (Ayn Rand) of property rights (( See Objectivists: “All Property is Intellectual Property”; A Recurring Fallacy: “IP is a Purer Form of Property than Material Resources”; The “Ontology” Mistake of Libertarian Creationists. )) or, perhaps even worse, or maybe just stupider sounding, "primary property" (Galambos). (( Galambos and Other Nuts; Rothbard and Galambosians; The Galambosians strike back; “Around this time I met the Galambosian.”; Libertarian Sci-Fi Authors and Copyright versus Libertarian IP Abolitionists; Was Galambos an IP Thief?; Galambos the Crank; Shades of Galambos: Man tries to copyright his name. )) Transcript and shownotes below. This was also so purely a perfect 4 minutes I couldn’t believe it — Alex (@AlexDVoss) September 16, 2026 Note: I misspoke a couple times in my 4-minute hurried initial presentation: I said "court" a few times when I meant the crown (king; government; state), granting patents in favor of "court" cronies; and the crown and/or church (Attila and the Witchdoctor) (( See Ayn Rand, “For the New Intellectual,” in For the New Intellectual: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (New York: Signet/New American Library, reprint of Random House, 1961; first Signet printing December 1963), pp. 7–48; Now Online: 'Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World'; "Faith" entry in Ayn Rand Lexicon; Bruce Goldberg, “Ayn Rand’s ‘For the New Intellectual’” (1961), n.14. )) controlling what books could be printed via control of the scribes, pre-printing press, and of the publishing houses thereafter via the Stationer's Company. Forgive me, forgive me. Re other IP debates: In his defense, as far as I know my opponent does not purport to have a coherent theory of property or IP or libertarianism. Go here https://t.co/rRs61a68M6 and search for the word "debate" for several others -- Richard Epstein was more coherent, but totally utilitarian; he… — Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) September 8, 2026 Related/mentioned “Conversation with an author about copyright and publishing in a free society” (Jan. 23, 2012) Copywrong: copyright as censorship KOL346 | Copyright and Satoshi’s Legacy: The Tatiana Show, with Tatiana Moroz How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law FDA and Patent Reform: A Modest Proposal “Are Patents Needed to Make Up for FDA Kneecapping?” (July 2, 2011) KOL190 | On Life without Patents and Copyright: Or, But Who Would Pick the Cotton? (PFS 2015) Mark Lemley: The Very Basis Of Our Patent System… Is A Myth (July 29, 2011) Frank H. Easterbrook, “Intellectual Property Is Still Property,” Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 13, no. 1 (Winter 1990): 108–118, pp. 109–110 (on inevitable disclosure) Intellectual Property’s Great Fallacy KOL190-2 | Part 2: On Life without Patents and Copyright: Or, But Who Would Pick the Cotton? — Panel Discussion, Hoppe, Dürr, Kinsella, van Dun, Daniels (PFS 2015) The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright “The Problem with Intellectual Property,” in Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics Do Business Without Intellectual Property (Liberty.me, 2014) The Universal Principles of Liberty Photos More at Facebook And at Free Cities Website select: Shownotes and Summary Overall Summary of Debate At the Free Cities Conference in Próspera, Alex Voss moderated Stephan Kinsella against Brian O’Beirne on whether intellectual property is legitimate and what a free city should do about it. Kinsella argued that property exists only to allocate scarce, rivalrous means (self-ownership, first use, contract, restitution); ideas are guides to action, not ownable things. Patent and copyright are statutory privileges—historically Crown monopolies and press control—that impose unconsented negative servitudes on other people’s property, block independent inventors, enrich large firms, and should be abolished. O’Beirne treated IP as a right in human ingenuity and a last individual defense against corporate oligopoly and central banking. He granted that the present code is broken (thickets, trolls, life-plus-70) but said abolition would hand creators’ work to those same firms; the answer is reform, sector-scaled terms, and symmetry of rights, not erasure. On practice they were closer. Both said Próspera should not pick a treaty fight that threatens the zone. O’Beirne wanted opportunistic protection to attract builders (CAFTA-DR/TRIPS, Infinita). Kinsella wanted the lightest lawful touch—no treble damages, no criminal copyright, shorter terms, Founders’ copyright, no software copyright—and stressed that patents are territorial, so skipping a local patent office does not stop U.S. or European filings and is largely irrelevant for exporters. Audience questions (expiry of “property,” fire and the wheel, trademarks, pharma/FDA) replayed the same split: O’Beirne qualified rights by the common good and novelty; Kinsella called consistent IP perpetual, the patent-bargain a myth, and patents a patch on the FDA. Summary of Kinsella's position (from Grok, based on the transcript and his pre-debate email exchange with O'Beirne and Voss) Stephan Kinsella’s case against intellectual property, as he put it to Alex Voss before the session and then on stage, has two layers that he keeps joined: a rights argument about what property is, and a practical argument about what a free city should do when it cannot get the ideal. Voss had already framed the dispute narrowly: patents and copyrights—exclusive rights in inventions and works that bind strangers without a contract. Contracts, NDAs, employment terms, and trade secrets were set aside as different questions. Voss’s sketch of Kinsella’s theory (conflict over scarce means; title by appropriation or transfer; creation not an independent source of title; information as patterning of an already-owned substrate; IP as a veto over others’ things) Kinsella accepted, then added history, scale of harm, and institutional design. 1. What property is for The four-minute opening is the core. We do not live in the Garden of Eden. Action uses two things: scarce means that can cause results, and knowledge that tells us how to use them. Knowledge can be copied; a hammer or a factory cannot be used two incompatible ways at once. Because people have free will, conflict over those scarce means is always possible. Property rights are the norms that let people possess and use those means peacefully—self-ownership of the body; original appropriation of unowned external resources; contract; restitution for wrongs. That, he says, is the spine of Roman law, common law, and a consistent libertarianism. Ideas do not fit. They are not “conflictable.” They exist only as the patterning of some already-owned substrate (paper, a chip, a machine). You own what you make because you already owned the inputs, not because “creation” mints a new title. Patent and copyright therefore do not add a new kind of property. They give A a legally enforceable veto over how B uses B’s own press, factory, or chemicals. In the debate he calls that a nonconsensual negative easement or servitude—the same structure as a restrictive covenant, minus the neighbors’ consent. Consent is the whole difference. He is explicit that he does not care about “symmetry.” A rule that everyone may sue everyone for defamation, or for welfare, would be symmetric and still unjust. First-to-the-patent-office does not even guarantee uniqueness: independent inventors are blocked. That is enough, for him, to reject the system as a matter of justice, before any spreadsheet about incentives. 2. History, legislation, and the dishonest name He adds what Voss’s paragraph left out. Patent began as Crown privileges to shield favorites from competition (Statute of Monopolies, 1623). Copyright began as control of the press and unapproved speech (Statute of Anne, 1710). They did not grow out of common-law title; they were statutes. In the email he presses a further institutional point: patent and copyright cannot exist without a legislature empowered to make law. Organic court-made law—Roman law, common law, Restatements, even a scholarly compilation adopted as a code—resolves disputes over scarce things. It does not invent a 17-year monopoly in a pattern. A free city that takes common-law or Restatement principles as its base, and treats legislation as rare and suspect, has a structural reason not to enact IP at all. His Universal Principles of Liberty are meant that way: not as a statute. He te

4.6
out of 5
37 Ratings

About

Austro-Anarchist Libertarian Legal Theory

You Might Also Like