TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    News

    Kinsella On Liberty

    Austro-Anarchist Libertarian Legal Theory

    Advertise
    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    KOL155 | “The Social Theory of Hoppe: Lecture 3: Libertarian Rights and Argumentation Ethics” Oct 16, 2014
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 155. This is the third of 6 lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course "The Social Theory of Hoppe." I’ll release the remaining lectures here in the podcast feed in upcoming days. The slides for this lecture are appended below; links for "suggested readings" for the course are included in the podcast post for the first lecture, episode 153. Transcript below. LECTURE 3: LIBERTARIAN RIGHTS AND ARGUMENTATION ETHICS Video [fvplayer id="12"] Slides TRANSCRIPT The Social Theory of Hoppe, Lecture 3: Libertarian Rights and Argumentation Ethics Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, July 25, 2011 00:00:01 STEPHAN KINSELLA: … later. So tonight we’ll talk about argumentation ethics. I have a lot of slides, but some of them will go very fast because they’re just background in case you want to look at them later or if we need some quotes. But let’s go ahead and dive right into tonight’s lecture. By the way, before we start, I’m curious. Who here – well, let me get to the readings page first. I don’t know if I have that up there. Who here read more than the required or suggested reading and onto the more optional reading? I’m just curious how many students have actually read into the argumentation ethics literature beyond the basic stuff I recommended. Anyone? 00:00:49 00:00:54 Okay, Jacob has. Jacob, I’m curious. What did you read beyond the basic stuff? Method essay. For argumentation ethics? Okay. In any case – oh, just by the way, so we’ll have a short quiz for the first – covering the first three weeks, which will start – I’ll have it posted in a few days. I’m leaving tomorrow morning, by the way, for the Mises University, so I’ll be traveling tomorrow, but I’ll try to get it up in a couple days. I wanted to finish this class first before I finish the test so I could make sure I covered only what we talked about in class. Oh interesting, Jacob. Good, so you’ve read a lot. Well, maybe you can help me with some of the difficult questions in here. 00:01:45 So the multiple-choice test will be up in a few days. It’s optional. Don’t feel compelled to take it if you don’t want to. It’s not meant to make anyone feel like they’re going to fail or anything. It’s just a refresher on the course. It’s going to be fun, test your knowledge, and to get the certificate if you’d like. And again, it’s based upon what I say in the lectures, the slides, and also the reading material I mark as suggested but not on the optional reading material. 00:02:11 00:02:15 Okay, so last class we talked about various property issues, how the state arises and the nature of the state, the types of socialism. We started to talk about de-socialization. I don’t know if we’ll have time to get to that tonight. I do have some slides on it at the very end, but I doubt we’ll be able to get to it very much. Anyway, the article is pretty self-explanatory in any case. Maybe we can cover it in lecture number six on political topics or number five on economic topics. 00:02:46 By the way, let me – well, we’ll talk at the end a bit about – next class will be on epistemology and methodology. Okay, so today we’re going to talk about libertarian rights and argumentation ethics. By the way, I have this little mini ad for my last course because I just want to remind people, I did cover some of this in that course in a more summary fashion. And some of that’s included in these slides. I modified it for tonight, and there’s extra stuff here too, but for anyone who took the previous course, some of this I talked about before. But I’m actually leaving out here a lot of the stuff I talked about in the Libertarian Legal Theory course because it’s not directly pertinent to Hoppe’s approach, but some of this will look familiar to some of you. 00:03:29 So tonight we’re going to talk basically about two main questions. We’re we talk about what libertarianism is, at least in different conceptions. And then we’re going to talk about the justification Hoppe provides for it. And if we have time, we can talk about some related approaches to argumentation ethics. The readings for tonight – the suggested readings were primarily my kind of concise overview and Hoppe’s article “From the Economics of Laissez Faire to the Ethics of Libertarianism.” And also his “Justice of Economic Efficiency” and this his “Appendix: Four Critical Replies.” So that was – there’s a lot more out there, but that’s a good sort of overview of what to read to get the flavor of this whole debate. 00:04:18 Now, this will be a little bit elementary for everybody, so I’m going to go over this quickly because I think we probably already know this, but just to kind of get us in the right framework and to refresh us on where we’re going. So let’s think about what is libertarianism about. So it’s a type of political theory compared to other types would be Marxism, forms of leftism and socialism, conservativism, and even modern liberalism or welfare statism or social democracy. It’s concerned with justice in a certain way, and if you think about the traditional classic formulation of justice by – in The Institutes of Justinian, the Roman emperor who helped codify a lot of Roman law, he had said “Justice is a constant and perpetual wish to render everyone his due. 00:05:08 And the maxims of law are these: to live honestly, to hurt no one, to give everyone his due. Now, these are nice formulations. They’re a little bit circular. They sort of – they circle back on each other because – it’s like defining ought is what you should do, and should – what you should do is what you ought to do. Some of these normative terms are kind of basic, and they feed back on each other. 00:05:31 So we talk about political theory and justice, and we say, well, justice means giving someone his due. You say, well, what are they do? Well, the most coherent way to think about it is that what you’re due depends on what your property rights are. And you’ll see the significance of this in a second when we talk about aggression. 00:05:50 Now, what’s different about libertarians – oh, thanks Rick. You read Hülsmann’s too. Thanks. By the way, the Hülsmann article and also the Larry Seacrest article as well as one of Hoppe’s and one of mine all arose from a seminar we did at Mises on Reinach, Adolf Reinach, who was an amazing and fascinating German thinker. He was killed I think in World War I. He died very young, but he was a brilliant guy, produced some great stuff before then that was on the a priori of the civil law and on the criminal law as well. 00:06:32 In any case, a lot of good stuff resulted from that seminar. It’s on my website if anyone is interested. And that’s where Guido’s piece came from. They were all published in the QJAE maybe ten years ago. In any case, we don’t own the word justice, we libertarians. But we do have a particular conception of what it means. And according to that conception – so basically, I think of it like this. Our conception of justice tells us what the rights we have are, and that tells us what laws there should be. 00:07:06 So it tells you what we’re due, what others owe you, which are obligations and duties, and that corresponds to your rights. So our idea is that the actual law enforced in a given society, whether there’s a state or not, should conform to what we conceive of as natural law. So you can think of natural law as an ideal template of laws that should exist, so we’re always aspiring or trying to make laws that do exist conform to that to be just. So you can think that a conception of justice informs your conception of what rights there are, and that informs your idea of what laws there should be. So this is just sort of general orientation of framework here. 00:07:47 Slide number seven. Now, libertarianism is sort of described in a lot of pithy sayings, examples, analogies, metaphors, aphorisms, and kind of summary or condensation statements. So, for example, Leonard Read, the founder of FEE, in a famous libertarian book in ’54 said people should be free to do anything that’s peaceful. That’s a pretty good summary of some of the basic normative aspects of libertarianism, but it doesn’t tell you too much. 00:08:21 Dave Boaz said: Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others.” That’s a pretty good – gives you the flavor of it too, but what does it mean to respect the equal rights of others? I mean if everyone had a right to welfare, then you’re respecting their equal rights, and I mean it only gets you so far. Ayn Rand put it a little bit colorfully in Galt’s speech: “So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? No man may start the use of physical force against the others.” And this is a sort of a good capsule way of stating the – what we call the non-aggression principle. 00:09:05 Rick asks about Bastiat, whether I consider him a libertarian in the strict sense. I mean I’ve read a lot of Bastiat. I’ve read him early on. He was influential to me. I haven’t revisited him lately on a lot of his issues. I don’t believe he was an anarchist, but I do believe that – well, for his time I’d say he was a strong libertarian, very radical, very clear thinking. And the things I’ve heard him write on seem to be pretty much all compatible with libertarianism. I don’t know if I heard him write on a lot of other libertarian or political views like drug regulations and social and moral regulations, but he seemed to be leaning strongly in the libertarian direction. He seems to at least be a classical liberal. 00:09:45 So let’s go on, slide number eight. So we’ve come to a better formulation, the non-aggression principle....


    KOL154 | “The Social Theory of Hoppe: Lecture 2: Types of Socialism and the Origin of the State” Oct 16, 2014
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 154. This is the second of 6 lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course “The Social Theory of Hoppe.” I’ll release the remaining lectures here in the podcast feed in upcoming days. The slides for this lecture are appended below; links for“suggested readings” for the course are included in the podcast post for the first lecture, episode 153. Transcript below. LECTURE 2: TYPES OF SOCIALISM AND THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE Video Slides TRANSCRIPT The Social Theory of Hoppe, Lecture 2: Types of Socialism and the Origin of the State Stephan Kinsella Mises Academy, July 18, 2011 00:00:00 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Can you guys hear me okay? Video and slide showing? Hello? Test, test. Okay, hey, good evening, everyone. It’s 6 p.m. central time US, later for some of you I know. So let’s get started. If there’s any initial questions about last week’s lecture, which I’ll go over some of in a little bit, I’ll be happy to take them now. But tonight, what I would like to concentrate on, I’ll catch up on some of the things I didn’t cover last time and talk about Hoppe’s views on types of socialism and the origin of the state. And I don’t know if I’ll have time to get to de-socialization. So, by the way, I posted last week a couple of funny things to the forums about “Drop It Like It’s Hoppe,” a sort of rap thing by a friend of mine. And also, a Facts About Hoppe, which I thought were amusing, so hope people enjoyed that. 00:01:02 So let’s go on here. So quick review, last class we talked about basically Hoppe’s place in the Austrian and liberal sort of literature and scheme, his influences, his style, his background, his basic orientation. And we talked about basic fundamental property-based and human-action-based, praxeology-based foundational concepts and principles, which run through most of his work, various implications of the human action axiom like conflict and scarcity, choice and cost, and profit and loss, and ends and means and causality, and the sort of methodological dualistic approach of Mises, which basically is looking at the causal world with the scientific method approach and more empirical approach, that is paucity, physical laws, and then trying to test those laws to see if you can falsify your hypothesis, which is the sort of standard way most people think of science. 00:02:14 But the Austrian view is that’s one type of science. Another type of science is the social sciences, which are focused on – can anyone hear me, or is it just Rick that’s having a problem? Okay, so I’ll keep going. Methodological dualism, which looks at the causal world in one sense and which, in the case of humans, would be human behavior, just analyzing what motions human bodies go through, or trying to understand the human ends and means and purposes – excuse me – which is the teleological realm. And from that realm, we know certain things a priori. We know that humans have ends or purposes. They employ means. There’s opportunity cost. They have choice. There’s a presupposition of causality. 00:03:09 If you didn’t presuppose causality, you couldn’t act because action employs means, which are scarce means in the world, which are causally efficacious at achieving your ends, which are believed to be. So an operative presupposition of action would be causality as well. So these are the a priori things that come from this side of dualism. Then we talked about different property-related concepts like contract, aggression, capitalism, socialism, even the state, which are all defined in terms of this fundamental concept of property. 00:03:43 00:03:46 I’m going to go to slide three. So today we’re going to continue the discussion of property, talk about how the state arises and what its definition is, and then talk about different types of socialism or statism. And if we have time, we’ll get to de-socialization, which I doubt we will actually, but that’s okay. We can cover that next time. The readings would be chapters three, four, and five and, to some degree, six of TSC, Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, also Hoppe’s article “Banking, Nation States, and International Politics,” which is chapter three of his EEPP book, and finally, “De-socialization in a United Germany,” which we may not get to today. 00:04:33 Okay, so let me just make one note. I don’t know if I made this clear enough last time about the concept of property. Many of you may have noticed that this word is used a little bit carelessly by a lot of people, libertarians and others. It’s used sometimes to refer to the scarce resource itself. Like you’ll say my car is my property. So they use the word property to refer to the thing that is owned. But technically it’s more of a relationship or a denotation of the ownership right that’s a legally respected right. 00:05:14 Now, legally doesn’t mean state law. It could mean private law, but basically some kind of institutionalized, legally recognized relationship, that is, a right to control a given resource. So I think to be careful, we need to think most of the time of property as the ownership right in a resource, not the resource that is owned. And this usage sort of goes back to the traditional usage of the word property, which has been used for hundreds of years in liberal thought, in classical liberal thought. 00:05:52 Richard Overton in 1646 put it this way, talking about self-ownership: “To every individual in nature, is given an individual property by nature, not to be invaded or usurped; for everyone as he is himself, so he hath a self propriety, else he not be himself.” So you see the propriety is sort of like a proprietorship or ownership over yourself. It’s not yourself. It’s the ownership over yourself. 00:06:20 And John Locke in 1690 in his Second Treatise of Government has this classic formulation. Though the Earth, and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person, and nobody has any right to it but himself. So we need to think of property as the relationship between an actor or an agent, that is, basically a human being, and some scarce resource, including his own body, which is also a scarce resource. So property answers the question who has the right to control this resource. It’s not who has the actual control of the resource. Actual control can be thought of as mere possession or – so think of Crusoe on a desert island. 00:07:07 He would actually have control of resources that he employs as means in his actions, but he really wouldn’t have ownership because he wouldn’t have any legal right, because a legal right is something that other people can respect. So the legal right is more of a social concept, which is compatible, by the with way, with Ayn Rand’s view of rights as social sort of devices. 00:07:32 Now, there’s a really good definition by A.N. Yiannopoulus. He is one of the world’s leading civil law scholars. He’s in Louisiana. The civil law is one of the two great legal systems in the world, the common law, which is in England and many of the former commonwealth or former commonwealth countries like most of the US, most of Canada, etc. And then the other great legal system is that in the continent, so it’s sometimes called the continental system in Europe and also in Louisiana in America for historical reasons and in Quebec in Canada and Scotland to a degree actually, in England. That’s called the civil law or code-based systems. 00:08:20 00:08:24 And Yiannopoulos – now, he’s not a libertarian, but it’s striking how compatible his analysis is with the Austrian libertarian way of looking at property. As he defines it, his treatise, which actually I’ll show you. I love this. This is [indiscernible_00:08:44]. It’s the civil law theories from Louisiana, property, fantastic, very expensive books, but they’re great. So this is this book here, such great works of scholarship. In any case, he defines it as I have it on the page here. I won’t read the whole thing, but basically I’ll read part of it. Property is the exclusive right to control an economic good. 00:09:04 It’s the concept that refers to the rights and obligations that have to do with the relations of man with respect to things of value, and he even goes into here about scarcity. He says that some things are needed, and because of the demand on them, they become scarce, and then laws help govern the use of these things. And then he says property rights are a direct and immediate authority over a thing. 00:09:28 Now, authority is sort of a loaded normative term, which means a legally recognized authority or right to control. He has another nice, compact expression at the bottom of the page here, on page five slide five. Ownership is the – I’m sorry. Possession – ownership is the right to control, or you can think of the right to possess by it where a mere possession is the factual authority that someone has over a thing. So even a thief would have temporary possession over a car he stole, for example, but he wouldn’t have the right to control it. He would just have actual or the factual authority but not the legally recognized authority. So that’s how we need to think of property, and this is how Hans Hoppe thinks about it throughout his work. 00:10:18 Now, let’s continue with what we were talking about last time about homesteading. So homesteading, or sometimes called original appropriation, would be assigning ownership. Hold on a second. Ethan, would you get that for me? It’s right there behind you. Assigning ownership to something that was previously unowned, a scarce resource that was unowned. Hold on a second. Okay, based upon a certain link, an objective link between the owner and the resource, so that is what homesteading is in the Lockian sense and is sort of reformulated by


    KOL153 | “The Social Theory of Hoppe: Lecture 1: Property Foundations” (Mises Academy, 2011) Oct 16, 2014
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 153. This is the first of 6 lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course “The Social Theory of Hoppe.” See also my article "Read Hoppe, Then Nothing Is the Same," Mises Daily (June 10, 2011). The remaining lectures follow in podcast feed. The slides for the first lecture of the Social Theory of Hoppe course are provided below, as are the “suggested readings” for the course. Transcript below. [Update: see also David Gordon, “The Political Economy of Hans Hoppe” (Mises University 2021)] As general background I suggest: Kinsella, “Foreword,” in Hans-Hermann Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (Laissez Faire Books ebook edition, 2013) Kinsella, “Afterword,” in Hans-Hermann Hoppe, The Great Fiction: Property, Economy, Society, and the Politics of Decline (Laissez Faire Books, 2012) “Introduction,” with Jörg Guido Hülsmann, in Hülsmann & Kinsella, eds., Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Mises Institute, 2009) (published as “Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe,” Mises Daily, Aug. 7, 2009) LECTURE 1: PROPERTY FOUNDATIONS Video Slides For slides for all six lectures, plus extensive hyperlinked suggested reading material, see this Libertarian Standard post. SUGGESTED READING MATERIAL The “suggested readings” for each lecture are appended below. Links, where available, are provided; most of these materials can also be found on stephankinsella.com/publications, c4sif.org/resources, mises.org, hanshoppe.com/publications, or on Wikipedia or by google search. LECTURE 1: PROPERTY FOUNDATIONS Chapters 1 & 2, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism [TSC] LECTURE 2: TYPES OF SOCIALISM AND THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE TSC Chs. 3-6 De-Socialization in a United Germany “Banking, Nation States and International Politics: A Sociological Reconstruction of the Present Economic Order” (ch. 3 of The Economics and Ethics of Private Property [EEPP]) LECTURE 3: LIBERTARIAN RIGHTS AND ARGUMENTATION ETHICS SUGGESTED READINGS Kinsella, “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide” Hoppe: EEPP, chapter 11, “From the Economics of Laissez Faire to the Ethics of Libertarianism,” ch. 12. “The Justice of Economic Efficiency,” and “Appendix: Four Critical Replies” OPTIONAL READINGS Kinsella, “New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory” “On the Ultimate Justification of the Ethics of Private Property,” by Hoppe “Beyond Is and Ought,” by Murray N. Rothard “Hoppephobia,” by Rothbard “Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan,” by Stephan Kinsella “Argumentation Ethics and The Philosophy of Freedom,” by Frank Van Dun “Hülsmann on Argumentation Ethics,” by Kinsella LECTURE 4: EPISTEMOLOGY, METHODOLOGY AND DUALISM; KNOWLEDGE, CERTAINTY, LOGICAL POSITIVISM Suggested Readings TSC, Pages 118-144 and 152-155 Economic Science and the Austrian Method Is Research Based on Causal Scientific Principles Possible in the Social Sciences? (ch. 10 of EEPP) In Defense of Extreme Rationalism: Thoughts on Donald McCloskey’s The Rhetoric of Economics [ch. 16 of The Great Fiction] Optional Readings Chapter 9. “On Praxeology and the Praxeological Foundation of Epistemology”; ch. 14. “Austrian Rationalism in the Age of the Decline of Positivism” (from EEPP) On Certainty and Uncertainty, Or: How Rational Can Our Expectations Be? [ch. 14, The Great Fiction] The Science of Human Action (lecture) LECTURE 5: ECONOMIC ISSUES AND APPLICATIONS Suggested Readings Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value Hoppe on Liberal Economies and War Hoppe: Marx was “Essentially Correct” Capitalist Production and The Problem of Monopoly (from TSC) Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory & the Production of Security Verstehen and the Role of Economics in Forecasting, or: If You’re so Rich, Why Aren’t You Smart? “Chicago Diversions” [in “The Ethics and Economics of Private Property,” in The Great Fiction] Kinsella, “Knowledge vs. Calculation” Optional Readings The Misesian Case against Keynes The Limits of Numerical Probability: Frank H. Knight and Ludwig von Mises and the Frequency of Interpretation A Note on Preference and Indifference in Economic Analysis Socialism: A Property or Knowledge Problem? LECTURE 6: POLITICAL ISSUES AND APPLICATIONS; HOPPE Q&A n/a *** Background: This is one of the five Mises Academy courses I presented in 2011. The others were: "Rethinking Intellectual Property"; “Libertarian Legal Theory”; “Libertarian Controversies”; and "Obama's Patent Reform: Improvement or Continuing Calamity?" (( Discussed in my article "Obama’s Patent Reform: Improvement or Continuing Calamity?," Mises Daily, Sep. 23, 2011; I discussed the AIA in further detail in The American Invents Act and Patent Reform: The Good, the Meh, and the Ugly) (audio and slides). )) The Hoppe course is discussed in my article “Read Hoppe, Then Nothing Is the Same"; see also Danny Sanchez's post Online Hoppe Course Starts Tomorrow. I enjoyed teaching all the courses, but my favorite was the Hoppe course. Hoppe has been the biggest intellectual influence of my life, as I detail in "How I Became A Libertarian" (published as “Being a Libertarian” in I Chose Liberty: Autobiographies of Contemporary Libertarians). I agree with Sanchez that "Hans-Hermann Hoppe is the most profound social theorist writing today." This is one reason I worked with the brilliant Austro-libertarian theorist, Jörg Guido Hülsmann, to produce the festschrift Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Mises Institute, 2009). The experience of teaching the Mises Academy classes was amazing and gratifying, as I noted in my article “Teaching an Online Mises Academy Course.” This and similar technology and Internet-enabled models are obviously the wave of the educational future. The students received an in-depth, specialized and personalized treatment of topics of interest to them, with tests and teacher and fellow student interaction, for a very reasonable price, and judging by their comments and evaluations, they were very satisfied with the courses and this online model. For example, for the Hoppe course, as noted in Danny Sanchez, A Happy Hoppean Student, Mises Economics Blog (July 12, 2011), student Cam Rea wrote, about the first lecture of the course: Move over Chuck Norris, Hans-Hermann Hoppe is in town! The introduction to “The Social Theory of Hoppe” was extremely thorough. I, a relative newcomer to the Hoppean idea, was impressed by Stephan Kinsella’s introduction to the theory. Mr. Kinsella hit upon all of those who came before Hoppe, and how each built upon another over the past two centuries. In other words, as Isaac Newton stated, “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Hoppe is the result thus far of those who came before him in the ideals of Austrian Economics and libertarian principles. Nevertheless, Hoppe takes it much further as in the Misesian concept of human action and the science of “praxeology”, from which all actions branch in life. Overall, the class was extremely enjoyable, the questions concrete, and the answer provided by Mr. Kinsella clear and precise. Like many others in the class, I look forward to more. So tune in next Monday at 7pm EDT. Same Hoppe-time, same Hoppe-channel! There were also rave reviews given by students of the other courses. For my first Mises Academy course, "Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics" (audio and slides), one student wrote me at the completion of the course, “The class (everything) was perfect. Content wasn’t too deep (nor too shallow) – the reviewed material was just brilliant and the “tuning” was great for someone like myself (engineering background – no profound legal/lawyer experience). It provided all the material to really “understand” (instead of “just knowing”) all that was covered which I find always very important in a class.” “Instruction was very comprehensive and thought provoking. The instructor was fantastic and very knowledgeable and answered every question asked.” “Learned more than i expected, the professor seemed to really enjoy teaching the class, and the readings provided were excellent. Overall for the cost I was extremely satisfied.” “Very interesting ideas I was not exposed to. Inexpensive, convenient, good quality.” “It is a very fascinating topic and I was quite eager to learn about what I.P. is all about. I thought that Professor Kinsella was able to convey complicated issues to us clearly.” “Professor Kinsella’s enthusiasm and extra links posted showed his true knowledge and interest in the subject. Great to see.” And: Thank you so very much for all the excellent work — very few classes have really changed my life dramatically, actually only 3 have, and all 3 were classes I took at the Mises Academy, starting with Rethinking Intellectual Property (PP350) (the other two were EH476 (Bubbles), and PP900 (Private Defense)). … My purposes for taking the classes are: 1. just for the fun of it, 2. learning & self-education, and 3. to understand what is happening with some degree of clarity so I can eventually start being part of the solution where I live — or at least stop being part of the problem. The IP class was a total blast — finally (finally) sound reasoning. All the (three) classes I took dramatically changed the way I see the world. I'm still digesting it all, to tell the truth. Very few events in my life have managed to make me feel like I wished I was 15 all over again. Thank you. … [M]uch respect and admiration for all the great work done by all the members of the whole team. Students would often give real-time feedback, in comments such as the following at the end of the lectures (the


    KOL152 | NYC LibertyFest: “Libertarianism After Fifty Years: What Have We Learned?” Oct 12, 2014
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 152. This is my speech “Libertarianism After Fifty Years: What Have We Learned?” delivered at the NYC LibertyFest (Brooklyn, NY, October 11, 2014). The original title was "Libertarianism After Fifty Years: A Reassessment and Reappraisal" but I was allotted only about 15-20 minutes so condensed the scope and could only touch briefly on many of the matters discussed. This audio was recorded by me from my iphone in my pocket; video and a higher-quality audio should be available shortly. The outline and notes used for the speech is appended below, which includes extensive links to further material pertaining to matters discussed in the speech. An edited transcript is available here. Speech Notes/Outline Libertarianism After Fifty Years: What Have We Learned? Stephan Kinsella NYC LibertyFest, Brooklyn, NY October 11, 2014 Introduction Modern libertarianism is about 50 years old. Main figures: Rand and Rothbard. “three furies of libertarianism” (Doherty, Radicals for Capitalism): Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand, and Isabel Patterson (1943) Mises, Hayek, Read, Friedman Rand Atlas, 1957; Rothbard, MES, 1962 From a Foreword I wrote for a forthcoming libertarian book: Modern libertarian theory is only about five decades old. The ideas that have influenced our greatest thinkers can be traced back centuries, of course,[1] to luminaries such as Hugo Grotius, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Herbert Spencer, David Hume, and John Stuart Mill, and to more recent and largely even more radical thinkers such as Gustave de Molinari, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Bertrand de Jouvenal, Franz Oppenheimer, and Albert Jay Nock.[2] The beginnings of the modern movement can be detected in the works of the “three furies of libertarianism,” as Brian Doherty calls them: Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand, and Isabel Patterson, whose respective books The Discovery of Freedom, The Fountainhead, and The God of the Machine were all published, rather remarkably, in the same year: 1943.[3] But in its more modern form, libertarianism originated in the 1960s and 1970s from thinkers based primarily in the United States, notably Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. Other significant influences on the nascent libertarian movement include Ludwig von Mises, author of Liberalism (1927) and Human Action (1949, with a predecessor version published in German in 1940); Nobel laureate F.A. von Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom (1944); Leonard Read, head of the Foundation for Economic Education (founded 1946); and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, author of the influential Capitalism and Freedom (1962). The most prominent and influential of modern libertarian figures, however, were the aforementioned novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand, the founder of “Objectivism” and a “radical for capitalism,” and Murray Rothbard, the Mises-influenced libertarian anarcho-capitalist economist and political theorist. Rothbard’s seminal role is widely recognized, even by non-Rothbardians. Objectivist John McCaskey, for example, has observed, that out of the debates in the mid-1900s about what rights citizens ought to have, "grew the main sort of libertarianism of the last fifty years. It was based on a principle articulated by Murray Rothbard in the 1970s this way: No one may initiate the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. The idea had roots in John Locke, America’s founders, and more immediately Ayn Rand, but it was Rothbard’s formulation that became standard. It became known as the non-aggression principle or—since Rothbard took it as the starting point of political theory and not the conclusion of philosophical justification—the non-aggression axiom. In the late twentieth century, anyone who accepted this principle could call himself, or could find himself called, a libertarian, even if he disagreed with Rothbard’s own insistence that rights are best protected when there is no government at all."[4] We can date the dawn of today’s libertarianism to the works of Rand and Rothbard: to Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (1957); and, especially, to Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State (1962), Power and Market (1970), and For A New Liberty (1973), plus his journal The Libertarian Forum (1969–1984). For A New Liberty stands today as a brilliant, and early, bold statement of the radical libertarian vision. By the mid-60s, the modern libertarian movement was coalescing, primarily behind the non-initiation of force principle and the “radical capitalism” of Ayn Rand, and Rothbard’s systematic libertarian corpus based upon the non-aggression principle or axiom. It is no surprise that the Libertarian Party was founded in 1971, as these ideas, and the liberty movement, were gaining steam. In the ensuing decades many other influential works appeared expounding on the libertarian idea, such as Linda and Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty (1970), John Hospers, Libertarianism: A Political Philosophy for Tomorrow (1971), David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom (1973), Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), Henri Lepage, Tomorrow, Capitalism (1978), Samuel Edward Konkin III, New Libertarian Manifesto (1980), Jan Narveson, The Libertarian Idea (1988), Anthony De Jasay, Choice, Contract, Consent: A Restatement of Liberalism (1991), Richard Epstein, Simple Rules for a Complex World (1995), Charles Murray, What It Means to Be a Libertarian: A Personal Interpretation (1996), David Boaz, Libertarianism: A Primer (1998), Randy E. Barnett, The Structure of Liberty (1998), and, more recently, Jeffrey A. Miron’s Libertarianism, From A to Z (2010), Jacob Huebert’s Libertarianism Today (2010), Gary Chartier’s The Conscience of an Anarchist (2011), and Gerard Casey’s Libertarian Anarchism (2012). [1] For more on this, see Brian Doherty, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement (2008), and David Boaz, The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao Tzu to Milton Friedman (1998). [2] See Boaz, The Libertarian Reader, id. [3] See Doherty, Radicals for Capitalism, id. [4] John P. McCaskey, “New Libertarians: New Promoters of a Welfare State” (April 14, 2014), http://www.johnmccaskey.com/joomla/index.php/blog/71-new-libertarians, See also Wendy McElroy, “Murray N. Rothbard: Mr. Libertarian,” LewRockwell.com (July 6, 2000). Still have our disagreements over issues issues like abortion, etc. But libertarian theory has developed and grown over the last five decades. At this stage in our history it is time to take stock of where we are: what we have learned, especially in light of the criticism from outsiders and criticism and debate by and among fellow libertarians. These debates and growing theoretical work in recent decades by growing numbers of scholars have highlighted some areas of progress and ways we can develop and refine going forward. First, what has become clearer: Political activism as a primary means of progress is limited at best [The Trouble with Libertarian Activism] Principled libertarianism is preferred over ad hoc, single-issue or utilitarian libertarianism Love of liberty; believe that aggression is wrong not just impractical [Why I’m a Libertarian — or, Why Libertarianism is Beautiful] Libertarianism is anti-war Not just “most” wars are bad, but all wars Libertarianism is anti-state (increasingly) [The Nature of the State and Why Libertarians Hate It] Libertarianism is radical, not incremental It is unique, radical, and different from and superior to the left and the right. Libertarianism is now overwhelmingly anti-intellectual property (patent and copyright), which upsets the old guard, which consists of a disproportionately large number of Randians and minarchists [The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide; Against Intellectual Property; Selected Supplementary Material for Against Intellectual Property; Anti-IP Resources] Legislation is not the way to make law [KOL001 | “The (State’s) Corruption of (Private) Law” (PFS 2012); Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society; summary version: Legislation and Law in a Free Society; Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter v. the Field Codes; KOL129 | Speech to Montessori Students: “The Story of Law: What Is Law, and Where Does it Come From?”; KOL020 | “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society: Lecture 3: Applications I: Legal Systems, Contract, Fraud” (Mises Academy, 2011)] Modern liberal democracy is not “closer” on the road to libertarianism [Hoppe, Democracy: God that Failed, and Introduction] America was not a proto-libertarian utopia, the Constitution was not libertarian, the Founders were not libertarian War, corruption, slavery, sexism [On Constitutional Sentimentalism; Black Armbands for “Constitution Day”; The Bad Bill of Rights, Goodbye 1776, 1789, Tom, Rockwell on Hoppe on the Constitution as Expansion of Government Power; Richman on the 4th of July and American Independence, The Murdering, Thieving, Enslaving, Unlibertarian Continental Army, Napolitano on Health-Care Reform and the Constitution: Is the Commerce Clause Really Limited?; Was the American Revolution Really about Taxes?; Bill Marina (R.I.P.) on American Imperialism from the Beginning; Happy We-Should-Restore-The-Monarchy-And-Rejoin-Britain Day!; Revising the American Revolution; The Declaration and Conscription; ‘Untold Truths About the American Revolution’; Jeff Hummel’s “The Constitution as a Counter-Revolution”; Bill Marina (R.I.P.) on American Imperialism from the Beginning;Happy We-Should-Restore-The-Monarchy-And-Rejoin-Britain Day!; Revising the American Revolution] Importance of re-examining traditional methods for child discipline and education ...


    KOL151 | Yale Speech: Balancing Intellectual Property Rights and Civil Liberties: A Libertarian Perspective Oct 07, 2014
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 151. This is my recent speech “Balancing Intellectual Property Rights and Civil Liberties: A Libertarian Perspective,” presented at Branford College at Yale University, New Haven, CT, Oct. 2, 2014, in a lecture series called “The Politic Presents." It was held in the beautiful Trumbull Room at Branford Court, where the accompanying picture was taken. The initial speech is about 33 minutes and was addressed mainly to non-libertarian undergraduate students. I tried to set the stage for those not familiar with Austrian economics, IP or IP theory, libertarianism, without being too basic. These were smart Yale students, after all. This was recorded in my iPhone in my suit pocket, but the quality is okay anyway; and it includes the 33 minute initial lecture and the following 20-minute Q&A session, but then I forgot to turn off my iPhone as I walked to a restaurant with a group of students for dinner, so it also includes some informal but fun Q&A and related conversation as we walked to dinner, for the last 10-20 minutes. Transcript available here.


    KOL150 | Greening Out Interviews Episode 10 Sep 16, 2014
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 150. An interview by the delightful libertarian couple Caity and Dan Greene, from Glasgow, Scotland. We discussed a variety of liberty-related matters, as noted on their show notes for Episode 10: Stephan Kinsella is Founder and Executive Editor of Libertarian Papers, Founder and Director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF), a member of the Editorial Board of Reason Papers, and a member of the Advisory Board of the Lexington Books series Capitalist Thought: Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. A registered patent attorney and former adjunct professor at South Texas College of Law, Stephan has published numerous articles and books on IP law, international law, and the application of libertarian principles to legal topics. He received an LL.M. in international business law from King’s College London, a JD from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center at LSU, and BSEE and MSEE degrees from LSU. He is currently a member of the Advisory Council of theGovernment Wast and Over-regulation Council of the Our America Initiative (2014—), and a Senior Fellow with the Bastiat Institute (2014–). We chat about intellectual property and Stephan's arguments against it, Ayn Rand, free markets, objectivism, anarcho-capitalism, how law may function in a stateless society, the Montessori method of education and more.


    KOL149 | IP And Beyond With Stephan Kinsella – Non-Aggression Podcast Aug 30, 2014
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 149. My recent appearance on the Non-Aggression Podcast with host Mike Cuneo, aka 412 Libertarian. We talked about IP, Georgism, Stefan Molyneux's use of the DMCA to do a copyright takedown of a critic on youtube, whether Hitler is responsible for the holocaust, and the like. From his show notes: IP And Beyond With Stephan Kinsella – Non-Aggression Podcast I had the pleasure of speaking at length with Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney, libertarian author and scholar, and head of the Center For The Study of Innovative Freedom, or C4SIV. Stephan also runs the site StephanKinsella.com Causation and Aggression (free PDF file), the paper we spoke about in the later part of the podcast. One of my favorite articles of all time, “What It Means To Be An Anarcho Capitalist.” Kinsella is the author of the groundbreaking book “Against Intellectual Property”(freely available for download) Here is the article that I alluded to when speaking about the marble statue example, as to why creation alone is not sufficient or necessary for ownership.


    KOL148 | Freedom Feens: Stephan Kinsella Battles The Copyright Zombies And Patent Trolls Aug 28, 2014
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 148. I was a guest last night on Freedom Feens (Aug 28, 2014): Stephan Kinsella Battles The Copyright Zombies And Patent Trolls – Freedom Feens live radio archive "Stephan Kinsella is an intellectual property attorney who hates intellectual property laws. He explains why, and what can be done about it. It’s one of the best chats we’ve heard from him yet. Derrick J. Freeman and Davi Barker help. Michael W. Dean isn’t there, and Davi is only there sometimes, because some patent somewhere is messing with their Internet." Some links for matters discussed in the show: Personal Audio’s podcasting troll patent:http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504 Man sentenced to federal prison for uploading “Wolverine” movie Tim Lee and Lawrence Lessig: “some punishment” of Swartz was “appropriate”; RIAA Celebrates 15 Year Jail Sentence For Movie and Music Pirate; Six Year Federal Prison Sentence for Copyright Infringement; British student Richard O’Dwyer can be extradited to US for having website with links to pirated movies.


    KOL147 | Tom Woods Show: Patents and Liberty Aug 21, 2014
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 147. I appeared on the Tom Woods Show today (Aug. 20, 2014, Episode 225), to discuss patents and liberty.


    KOL146 | Interview of Williamson Evers on the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract Aug 06, 2014
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 146. Today I had a discussion with Williamson Evers, about his pathbreaking 1977 article Toward a Reformulation of the Law of Contracts, which was the first article ever published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies (Evers's other JLS articles). This article was relied on heavily by Rothbard, in ch. 19 of The Ethics of Liberty, "Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts." I discuss this piece in detail in my 2003 JLS article "A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability" (now in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023)), and I also discuss it in my post Justice and Property Rights: Rothbard on Scarcity, Property, Contracts…. See also my post Thoughts on Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery, Alienability vs. Inalienability, Property and Contract, Rothbard and Evers. A fascinating interview. We discussed the genesis of this important theory and related matters. I appreciate greatly Dr. Evers taking time to discuss this matter with me. Note: The purpose of talking to Evers was to ask him questions about his own theory of contract. I sent him a copy of my article as a way to persuade him to talk with me, but my purpose was not to discuss my article with him. However, Evers seemed to think this was the reason for my call and he kept bringing the topic back to my article, when I really wanted to discuss his. In any event, as he was my guest, I did not try too hard to change the topic, and did end up getting a great deal of useful information from him about his original paper and the origin of these ideas. Grok shownotes: [00:00:01 - 00:17:54] Stephan Kinsella interviews Williamson Evers, a Stanford PhD and Hoover Institution research fellow, about the title-transfer theory of contract, a libertarian legal framework pioneered by Evers and Murray Rothbard. Evers recounts the theory’s genesis in the 1970s, stemming from late-night discussions with Rothbard, which led to his seminal 1977 article in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. The theory redefines contracts as transfers of property titles rather than enforceable promises, aligning with natural rights and private property principles. They discuss its revolutionary potential, its underappreciation, and its distinction from traditional legal systems that emphasize expectations or obligations to act, highlighting how all contractual obligations can be reduced to property title transfers. [00:17:55 - 00:34:55] The conversation delves into nuanced aspects of the theory, including future title transfers, bankruptcy, and inalienability. Evers addresses concerns about contracts involving non-existent or future assets, arguing they remain valid, though he opposes debtor’s prison and overly punitive measures like exorbitant performance bonds that could resemble slavery. He critiques the idea of “walking away” from contracts, as seen in mortgage defaults, and emphasizes the need for further research into issues like abandonment of hazardous property and the intersection of inalienability with punishment. Kinsella and Evers agree that the theory requires more development, citing contributions from scholars like Randy Barnett, and conclude with mutual appreciation for the discussion’s depth and its implications for libertarian legal philosophy. Transcript and Grok detailed shownotes below. Update: See also Thoughts on Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery, Alienability vs. Inalienability, Property and Contract, Rothbard and Evers (Jan. 9, 2022). See also KOL197 | Tom Woods Show: The Central Rothbard Contribution I Overlooked, and Why It Matters: The Rothbard-Evers Title-Transfer Theory of Contract. Related links: KOL225 | Reflections on the Theory of Contract (PFS 2017) KOL197 | Tom Woods Show: The Central Rothbard Contribution I Overlooked, and Why It Matters: The Rothbard-Evers Title-Transfer Theory of Contract KOL 029 | First Degree Liberty Interview: Argumentation Ethics and the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract KOL338 | Human Action Podcast Ep. 308 with Jeff Deist: Rothbard on Punishment, Property, and Contract Youtube: https://youtu.be/4tIlPMJeilA GROK DETAILED SHOWNOTES Detailed Segment Summary [00:00:01 - 00:06:42] Introduction and Genesis of the Title-Transfer Theory Kinsella introduces Evers, noting his 1977 article as the first in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Evers shares his background, his friendship with Rothbard, and their late-night discussions that shaped the theory. The title-transfer theory emerged from Evers’ graduate work at Stanford, where he explored underdeveloped libertarian legal concepts, buildingrived from Rothbard’s initial ideas in 1974 and formalized in Evers’ 1977 article, later used in Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty. [00:06:43 - 00:15:30] Core Principles and Philosophical Foundations The theory posits that contracts are transfers of property titles, not enforceable promises, aligning with the idea that all rights are property rights over scarce resources. Evers critiques utilitarian views of contracts based on expectations, advocating for a natural rights approach. Discussion touches on inalienability, emphasizing that self-ownership prevents selling oneself into slavery, distinguishing body rights from alienable property rights. Evers and Kinsella compare their philosophical leanings: Evers favors an Aristotelian-Thomist approach, while Kinsella is influenced by Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, though both see compatibility. [00:15:31 - 00:24:52] Future Obligations and Onerous Damages They explore contracts involving future obligations, such as delivering non-existent assets, which Evers considers valid but not justifying debtor’s prison. Evers raises the issue of performance bonds and whether exorbitant penalties (e.g., $1 trillion) could equate to slavery, suggesting this area needs further research. Kinsella suggests that extreme future title transfers could mimic slavery, potentially justifying bankruptcy-like provisions. Evers references Randy Barnett’s contributions and mentions Marcus Cole’s bankruptcy expertise as relevant to the theory. [00:24:53 - 00:34:55] Bankruptcy, Abandonment, and Inalienability in Punishment Evers expresses discomfort with bankruptcy’s “fresh start” concept, arguing that debts remain owed, and criticizes advice to “walk away” from mortgages during the financial crisis. On abandonment, Evers argues that abandoning hazardous property (e.g., polluted sites) doesn’t absolve responsibility, comparing it to a bullet or landmine causing harm later. They discuss how punishment (e.g., restitution or imprisonment) intersects with inalienability, as compelling action may conflict with the principle that specific performance cannot be enforced. The episode concludes with mutual appreciation and acknowledgment that the title-transfer theory remains underexplored, with room for further scholarly work. TRANSCRIPT Interview of Williamson Evers on the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract Stephan Kinsella and Williamson Evers August 5, 2014 00:00:01 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, this is Stephan Kinsella. I’m here with Mr. Williamson Evers who I’ve never met in person, and he has graciously agreed to discuss with me a topic that I’ve been interested in, in a number of years, the title-transfer theory of contract. And Mr. Evers, how are you doing? 00:00:19 WILLIAMSON EVERS: I’m fine, thank you. So I’m Bill Evers, Williamson M. Evers. I’m a Stanford PhD in political science, and I currently am a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. I was a friend of Murray Rothbard for many years and discussed political theory and philosophy of law questions with him including questions about the law of contracts. So I think that’s what we’re going to discuss today. 00:01:01 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Absolutely, and I’ll just observe that I’ve been a fan of the Journal of Libertarian Studies, of course, since its inception, and I noticed that I think your article was the very first article every published in the JLS. 00:01:13 WILLIAMSON EVERS: That’s right. It was the lead article in Volume 1 No. 1. 00:01:19 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yes, and you’ve had several others. 00:01:20 WILLIAMSON EVERS: Yes, and I was also the managing editor for awhile. 00:01:24 STEPHAN KINSELLA: And I think your article came out in 1977, and I’m a lawyer, and so I’ve written on this topic. And I’ve been interested in it since I’ve been studying Rothbard and libertarian theory. And this theory has been fascinating to me for a long time. My impression, and I’d like to get your impression, is that it’s been – it’s got a lot of potential. It could have more development, and it’s underappreciated, and I think it’s revolutionary to be honest in legal and libertarian theory. 00:01:54 Just in tracing the genesis of the idea, it appears to me that around 1974 – I think your article came out in ’77 – around ’74, Rothbard had some sketchy thoughts on this in one of his earlier articles. So my guess has been for awhile that you and Rothbard were discussing this, and you wrote it up into a longer piece, and then Rothbard drew on that in his Ethics if Liberty chapter, which relies heavily upon your 1977 article. Is that basically what happened? Do I have that right? 00:02:26 WILLIAMSON EVERS: I think that’s basically right. So this was a long time ago. So you and I are talking in 2014. 00:02:37 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Correct. 00:02:37 WILLIAMSON EVERS: I specialize in kindergarten through high school education policy these days, and I’m not writing in this area anymore. 00:02:49 STEPHAN KINSELLA: I understand. 00:02:50 WILLIAMSON EVERS: I’m not saying I would never write in it an


    Previous 1 33 34 35 36 37 50 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters

    1

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters Business
    WSJ Your Money Briefing

    2

    WSJ Your Money Briefing Business
    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task

    3

    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task Business
    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women

    4

    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women Business
    Slate Money

    5

    Slate Money Business
    In The Dark – The New Yorker

    6

    In The Dark – The New Yorker Business News
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights