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:
    KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender (Crypto-Currency Conference, Atlanta, 2013) Oct 06, 2013
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 085 Relevant links at KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019). See also: Bitcoin Confiscation vs. Gold Confiscation This is the audio (from my iPhone) of my talk “The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender,” from the Crypto-Currency Conference: Bitcoin and the Future of Money (Atlanta, Oct. 5, 2013). Slides below. Video/professional audio to be released later. Pix here and here. https://youtu.be/myTq7ydbYO8 Update: Video is available here (BAD LINK) Transcript below. Update: See also Bitcoin Magazine's: OCTOBER 2013 CRYPTO-CURRENCY CONFERENCE PREVIEW: On October 4 through 5, Atlanta, Georgia will host the 2013 Crypto-currency Conference: Bitcoin and the Future of Money. Bitcoin Magazine is proud to serve as a sponsor alongside of Let’s Talk Bitcoin, The Bitcoin Foundation, Students for Liberty, FEE, and Atlanta Bitcoin of this conference spearheaded by Jeffrey Tucker, Executive Editor of Laissez Faire Club and Laissez Faire Books, Distinguished Fellow for the Foundation for Economic Education, and Research Fellow of the Action Institute. The purpose of the conference will be to connect monetary economists, legal theorists, banking pundits, code-slinging visionaries, miners, and payment-systems analysts to shed light on the rise of Bitcoin. As Bitcoin is not just a currency but a movement towards greater economic freedom the 2013 Crypto-Conference will address the following questions: What does the success of Bitcoin imply for the theory, practice, and future of money and payment systems? How can we account for the sheer implausibility of Bitcoin’s rise? What does its emergence imply for the prospects of nationalized systems of money and the future of human liberty and commerce? Will Bitcoin go the way of most innovations and fall prey to government’s dead hand of regulation and strangulation? The Conference team hopes to shed light on how Bitcoin, in contrast to most currencies, has in fact increased in value over time. Over the past 100 years, the value of money has fallen to carry only about 5 of its purchasing power. As a decentralized, digital currency, Bitcoin is not beholden to a central bank and has emerged as a solution to bypass fiat money. The speed and ease of transaction makes the crypto-standard stronger than the gold standards. The Conference will open with a Friday night reception at the office of BitPay, Inc., one of the lead Bitcoin payment processing companies, where guests will hear from musician Tatiana Moroz who as a guitarist and songwriter sings about human liberty. On Saturday morning, Jeffrey Tucker will provide the keynote address, “A New Currency for the Digital Age,” at the The Twelve Hotel in Atlantic Station, a post-industrial hub of Atlanta. Panels will include discussions of Money and Freedom, Cryptography and Contracts, Merchantcraft, and Future Development. Speakers include Tony Gallippi (CEO, BitPay) and Stephen Pair (CTO, BitPay), Stephen Kinsella (Executive Editor, Libertarian Papers), Doug French (Senior Editor, Laissez Faire Club), Michael Goldstein (Co-Founder, The Mises Circle), Peter Surda (Author, Economics of Bitcoin), Charlie Schrem (CEO, BitInstant), Charles Hoskinson (CEO, Invictus Innovations Incorporated), Daniel Larimer (CTO, Invictus Innovations Incorporated), Cathy Reisenwitz (Writer and Political Commentator, Reason Magazine), Adam B. Levine (Editor in Chief, Let’s Talk Bitcoin), Tuur Demeester (Author, MacroTrends), Daniel Krawisz (Libertarian Activist). The evening will conclude with a cocktail reception featuring Austin Craig and Beccy Bingham’s story, “Life on Bitcoin.” Austin and Becky as newlyweds took the challenges of living for 90 days on Bitcoin alone and will share of their journey which is shortly coming to a close. THE REST OF THE YEAR: BITCOIN CONVENTION ROUNDUP: Crypto-Currency Conference – this conference will be more focused on philosophical issues than the others, with speakers like Laissez Faire Books’ Jeffrey Tucker, libertarian legal theorist Stephan Kinsella and the Mises Institute’s Doug French, as well as the Bitcoin economist Peter Surda, Adam Levine and BitPay’s Tony Gallippi. The conference will take place on October 5 in Atlanta. *** Also: in the WSJ article Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, the article notes that legal tender laws are, in fact, jeopardizing BTC. Bitcoins are now classified by the IRS as "property" "instead of" as legal tender money, meaning capital gains taxes are owed on transactions. I mentioned this danger in my talk; a similar problem afflicts the re-adoption of gold or silver as money. But as I noted in the Q&A to my talk, I am not persuaded that bitcoins are ownable resources—things subject to property rights. The IRS here assumes that something is either money or property. This is one danger of BTC advocates using the language of property rights to describe bitcoins. I would argue that bitcoins are not legally owned and thus capital gains taxes are not applicable—or at least, this is one argument the target of a government tax evasion suit might want to use. Update: Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland: Bitcoin Association Switzerland reports that, according to the Swiss Federal Tax Administration, no VAT applies to bitcoin in Switzerland. The transfer of bitcoin doesn’t constitute delivery of goods or services, and therefore it’s not subject to VAT. Update: for more on whether bitcoin is ownable property, see this Facebook thread. And see: Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable. See also: FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters Also: "in the WSJ article Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, the article notes that legal tender laws are, in fact, jeopardizing BTC. Bitcoins are now classified by the IRS as “property” “instead of” as legal tender money, meaning capital gains taxes are owed on transactions. I mentioned this danger in my talk; a similar problem afflicts the re-adoption of gold or silver as money. But as I noted in the Q&A to my talk, I am not persuaded that bitcoins are ownable resources—things subject to property rights. The IRS here assumes that something is either money or property. This is one danger of BTC advocates using the language of property rights to describe bitcoins. I would argue that bitcoins are not legally owned and thus capital gains taxes are not applicable—or at least, this is one argument the target of a government tax evasion suit might want to use." KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender ] See also: Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator; KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) Also: SEC: US Securities Laws 'May Apply' to Token Sales TRANSCRIPT 00:00:10 DOUG FRENCH: Our next speaker has done nothing less than pathbreaking work in the area of intellectual property. He probably could be considered the “Satoshi of IT” if you will. He’s an American intellectual property lawyer, a libertarian legal theorist. He’s created the website The Libertarian Standard. He’s created the academic journal, the Libertarian Papers. He’s written a number of books, including my favorite, Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary. But probably he is best known for a book called – that really turned the libertarian world on its ear. This argument continues on. It rages on. He continues to debate any and all comers online. But he is – well, this is the perfect time in the cyber world to have a lawyer in the house. And he is our lawyer in the house. Please help me welcome Stephan Kinsella. 00:01:17 [clapping] 00:01:23 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Thanks very much Doug, and I’m really glad to be here. I just flew in from Houston. I would really like to thank Jeff for giving me the chance to speak on a non-IP topic, which I do enjoy. So my topic today is on legal tender. I’m going to explain briefly how I recently got interested in this topic and then go into some background. When I was in law school, in 1989 or so, I was clerking at a firm in Baton Rouge. I was asked by the partner to research the question of whether it was legal or illegal to refuse to take a payment of cash under legal tender law. 00:02:01 So if you owe someone a million dollars and you bring them a briefcase full of cash, can they say, “I refuse to accept that offer. I want you to write me a check instead. So I started researching what is legal tender. If you look at your dollar bills, it will say this note is legal tender for all debts public and private. It’s sort of a mysterious meaning. What exactly does that mean? How much money do you have to pay to satisfy a debt? 00:02:25 So I started getting interested in it. A couple of years later, I was in graduate school in law in London, and I looked at the British pound notes and they have other language which says, Bank of England. I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of 5 pounds or 10 pounds or whatever the note is. So, like a smartass, I walk down to the Bank of England one day, in the middle of the financial district, with a backpack. I was dressed like a student, and I walked in the front door and I asked. I said, “Can I redeem this for five pounds of whatever it is it’s five pounds of?” And they said, “Do you have an appointment?” I said, “No”. So they sent me out, and they said you have to have an appointment to come into the Bank of England. 00:03:06 So they said you might want to visit the Bank of England Museum around the corner. So I walked around the corner. I went to the Bank of England Museum. I was the only guy there, and I started asking the curator these questions. And he went to the back, and he brought me a mimeographed—I think that’s photocopy—a mimeographed sheet of typewritten papers explaining why that language doesn’t mean that t


    KOL084 | Bad Quaker Interview re the State, Government, Intellectual Property Oct 01, 2013
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 084. This is from Episode 415 of the Bad Quaker podcast, with Ben Stone. We talked about a variety of matters, including the legitimacy of the state, intellectual property, and related matters.


    KOL083 | Interview with Daniel Rothschild on Intellectual Property, Government, National Defense, and Other Scams Sep 28, 2013
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 083. This was my appearance on Daniel Rothschild's youtube channel on Sept. 27, 2013; we discussed a variety of topics, including "Intellectual Property, Government, National Defense, and Other Scams".


    KOL082 | FreeTalkLive Guest Appearance: IP (2011) Sep 26, 2013
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 082. This is from the Sunday, Aug. 21, 2011 FreeTalkLive in which I was a guest, discussing intellectual property with Sunday hosts Mark Edge and Stephanie. We talked for about an hour and a half, from 7pm-830pm EDT and had a good, wide-ranging discussion. A few callers called in near the end. This was the FTL debut on XM satellite radio’s “Extreme Talk”, XM 165. This episode is also available on the show's podcast feed here.


    KOL081 | Adam vs. the Man: Drug Patents (2011) Sep 14, 2013
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 081. I appeared in August 2011 on Adam vs. The Man, talking about drug patents and related issues. Our segment runs from about 22:38 to 28:35. https://youtu.be/vjzSX0N0A1s


    KOL080 | Adam vs. the Man: “Understanding Intellectual Property Law” (2011) Sep 14, 2013
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 080. https://youtu.be/X6FaxA0Mjp8 Ths is from a previous appearance on the Adam vs. the Man show at the RT Network, Episode #28 (May 19, 2011), discussing IP and related matters. As the show's notes describe the episode: Episode #28: Faith & healthcare, Intellectual property rights Tonight on ADAM VS THE MAN with Adam Kokesh: Adam has some good news for you tonight: you are not a pirate. In fact, because it is morally wrong to use the force of government to impede the free flow of ideas, you have the RIGHT to copy music, movies, text, software, inventions, and IDEAS! Speaking of ideas worth copying, Adam has best-selling author and President of Sojourners Jim Wallis in studio and Stephan Kinsella, intellectual property rights attorney, joins Adam from Houston Texas to tell you how to beat back the twisted logic of intellectual property. But that won’t stop the government from imposing a twisted morality of stifling innovation on you to make you feel bad for copying things that big corporations don’t want you to copy. Well tough! Because the internet is here to the rescue! - See more here


    KOL079 | “Federalist Society IP Debate (Ohio State)” (2011) Sep 14, 2013
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 079. https://youtu.be/BZHIh6so6-Y This is from March 3, 2011: "IP Debate: John Templeton Foundation's Big Questions Debate series on Intellectual Property and Wealth Creation," The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Student Chapter of The Federalist Society (Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University, Columbus OH). Transcript below. This debate was part of the "John Templeton Foundation’s Big Questions Debate series on Intellectual Property and Wealth Creation”; I debated patent attorney and adjunct IP law professor Steve Grant, who represented the pro-IP side. A video was taken with a videocamera, but it was not direct mic'd so the quality is only so-so. The podcast version here is from my iPhone recording, which I often make during speeches as a backup, in case of low quality of the official version. My iPhone version is better quality, for my own remarks, than the audio from the camera (the audio file from the camera's recording is here). Professor Grant did his best, but didn't have a solid argument for IP other than the standard "I think we should reform IP but not get rid of it." My opening speech is about 15 minutes and has decent audio quality, and is a summary of a hard-hitting version of the basic libertarian case against IP law (here is the powerpoint presentation I used; embedded version below). Grant's speech is audible but I was not very close to him; but his conventional and unsystematic, more empiricist and positivist than libertarian and principled remarks will be of only mild interest to libertarians. For my 10 or so minute rebuttal to him, I left my iPhone at the table but it's still audible; for the Q&A period, it was in front of me so it's decent again for that part. My host was Aman Sharma, a very staunch libertarian law student and head of the student chapter of the Federalist Society. When I was involved with the Federalist Society (lawyers chapters) in Philadelphia and Houston they were populated with mainly Newt Gingrich loving neocons; good to see some Austro-libertarians infiltrating their ranks. Sharma told me "I had a lot of fellow students approach me after the event with questions showing a new-found interest in the Mises/Austrian worldview." That is cool and gratifying. While in Ohio, I met my friend Jacob Huebert and other local libertarians/Federalist Society people—including Katelyn Horn and Maurice Thompson, of the 1851 Center, for dinner at Barrio Tapas. A fun trip, and great people. https://youtu.be/xkYeJ4_ULs0?si=X7xiWAu168WSIcxl Update: See Japan Wants to Standardize Car Parts to Protect Its Auto Industry. See Grok analysis: Opponent's comment/argument on standards (Steve Grant, pro-IP side): In the 2011 Federalist Society IP debate at Ohio State (transcript on your site), during Q&A/rebuttal, Grant highlighted what he saw as an inconsistency in your position. You advocated abolishing/minimizing the state and eliminating IP laws (patents/copyrights), yet noted that a free market without IP would produce more uniformity, interoperability, and compatible standards (e.g., fewer mismatched connectors or proprietary silos caused by designing around patents). Grant pointed out the apparent tension: you want to get rid of the state but also want more standards for interoperability. This was presented as a practical challenge to your anarchist/minarchist + anti-IP views. Your response: You countered that patents and IP currently create fragmentation and waste. Awareness of others' patents forces companies to "design around" them, resulting in incompatible standards, proprietary connectors, and duplicated efforts. Without IP, free emulation, competition, and access to the shared body of knowledge would naturally yield greater uniformity, interoperability, and compatibility—voluntary standards emerging more readily in a true free market. This reinforced your core arguments (from Against Intellectual Property and elsewhere): IP grants artificial monopolies that redistribute property rights and hinder the market's ability to overcome scarcity through competition and learning. Entrepreneurs can profit via reputation, bundling, first-mover advantages, etc., without state-granted privileges. Summary of the Recent Japan Article The July 16, 2026, The Drive article discusses Japan's auto industry (led by JAMA, chaired by Toyota CEO Koji Sato, including Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc.) considering broad standardization of car parts across manufacturers to enhance competitiveness amid transitions like EVs, software, and ADAS. Focus is on invisible/shared components (wiring harnesses, hoses, etc., not body styles or full platforms) to cut costs, redirect R&D to customer-valued innovations, and improve collaboration. It builds on existing platform-sharing but scales it industry-wide due to a perceived "crisis" and lagging organization compared to other countries. Pros include efficiency and easier repairs; cons include potential loss of differentiation. (Related recent moves involve unified defect/quality standards to reduce waste amid supply pressures, but the linked piece emphasizes broader standardization for industry protection/strength.) Would Patents Impede Japan's Standardization Desire? How Your IP Arguments Pertain Yes, patents would likely impede or complicate this effort—and your anti-IP arguments directly explain why Japan's push illustrates the benefits of reducing or eliminating such barriers. Direct impediment via design-arounds and fragmentation: As you explained in the debate, patents require competitors to navigate or avoid others' IP, leading to incompatible "crazy interlocking standards" and connectors. For Japan to standardize parts industry-wide (e.g., common harnesses or components across Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc.), participants would face licensing negotiations, royalty demands, infringement risks, or costly workarounds. This raises transaction costs, delays collaboration, and fragments outcomes—precisely the societal waste you highlighted. Voluntary standardization is harder when IP creates veto rights over functional designs. Your framework predicts freer standardization without IP: Remove patents, and emulation becomes legal and encouraged. Firms could freely copy/improve successful functional parts, accelerating common standards through market processes (contracts, joint ventures, reputation). Japan's initiative—private collaboration via JAMA to pool resources on "invisible" parts—aligns with this: it shows industry seeking efficiency despite IP distortions. In a patent-free world, such efforts would face fewer obstacles, enabling deeper, faster interoperability as you described. Broader IP critique applies: Patents represent state-granted artificial scarcity and partial co-ownership of others' property (tools, factories, materials). This distorts the natural assignment of rights to scarce resources. Japan's standardization aims to better allocate scarce physical resources (parts, R&D) by reducing duplication—something IP undermines by privatizing patterns/ideas. Your arguments (property theory from Hoppe/Rothbard, ideas as non-scarce) show IP is counterproductive here: it protects incumbents but hampers collective efficiency gains that a free market could achieve through open competition. Relevance to "protecting the industry": The article frames standardization as a defensive move for Japanese automakers. Your view would support the voluntary aspects (cooperation lowers costs, boosts competitiveness) but critique any reliance on IP or state privileges as cronyism. True long-term strength comes from strong tangible property rights, low regulation, and open emulation—not monopolies that impede exactly the standardization they now seek. This example bolsters your case that IP is not essential for innovation or industry health; markets can coordinate standards effectively without it. In summary, patents act as a friction against Japan's goals, validating your debate points: IP creates barriers to the very interoperability and efficiency the industry wants. Eliminating it would remove those impediments, allowing more fluid, market-driven standardization—as your libertarian IP abolitionism predicts and as real-world efforts like this hint at despite the current system. This ties neatly into your work on IP as negative servitudes and free society foundations. TRANSCRIPT (from Youtube) 0:02 good afternoon president of the federal 0:07 society on behalf of more federal society and I get lost inside here more so I welcome you to today's event 0:14 entitled isn't Alexa property he relevant anymore proud to have the John Templeton 0:19 Foundation sponsors for this event they've got excellent catered food we hope you're enjoying I wanna mention 0:26 just a few things before we get going the first is that elections with minimal water out of Schneider come out at the 0:31 end of this month we an email out on the twin deserves so if you're on plan and you're on our site will be able to get 0:38 the updates for that the boudin and whatever on that sort of thing next I'll explain the format and then 0:44 I'll get started with the brief introduction of speakers and we'll get going here first the format as usual it is going to 0:50 allow for debate so we're gonna have clothing productions by each speaker starting with our guest speaker 0:56 purchased upon detail and we'll have a ten minute rebuttal in the same order on the Washington answer session with you 1:03 the members of the audience so let's start with her grandmother Stephen grant 1:08 practices with assembly wall group in Dublin in the field intellectual property is most particular expertise as 1:14 the prosecution of us had an application that originated in and offices he's been admitted to 1:20 practice before the ten years the US Patent and Trademark Office the Supreme C


    KOL078 | Lions of Liberty Podcast Inaugural Episode: Intellectual Property Sep 13, 2013
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 077. Lions of Liberty podcast. From Marc Clair's podcast description: Episode 1: Stephan Kinsella September 13, 2013 In this inaugural edition of the Lions of Liberty Podcast, host Marc Clair interviews libertarian legal scholar Stephan Kinsella about the concept of intellectual property and the libertarian framework. Lions of Liberty Podcast, Ep. 1: Stephan Kinsella Finally! The long-anticipated Lions of Liberty Podcast has arrived! In this first episode, I spoke with Stephan Kinsella regarding the subject of intellectual property within the libertarian framework. Kinsella is the author of Against Intellectual Property, and is one of the best-known voices in the libertarian community against the concept of intellectual property. I found the conversation with Kinsella very interesting and I feel it will be helpful not only for those trying to sort out a stance on intellectual property, but also for those new to libertarian ideas in sorting out some of the finer details of a libertarian framework. Before launching into tirades about “private property” and “contracts”, it’s important to have a firm grasp on the definitions of these terms. I first came to the IP debate through the “debate” between Kinsella and Robert Wenzel on the issue, which served more as car-crash entertainment than an intellectual study. But it did peak my interest in an area I had honestly not given much thought to before. After reading his book and speaking further with him on the issue, I find it difficult to present a case in favor of intellectual property, at least as we know the concept today. The biggest problem I see with intellectual property is that it attempts to bind third parties, not privy to any sort of contract, and prohibit them from using their own property in a way they see fit. I tend to agree with Kinsella’s view that intellectual property is nothing more than the State’s granting of a monopoly on an idea or a pattern of ideas. The biggest difference between Kinsella and myself is that I may see a private society, sans the State, as coming up with more ways to protect their works through contracts and/or user agreements, but ultimately that can only go so far. Any differences we may have on just how far private arrangements to protect the work of artists may go are largely moot. When it comes to forming a libertarian position on a subject, we should not be asking “how will this work?” but “what is right?” Your feedback is welcome and encouraged! This is my first attempt at conducting an interview or producing a podcast, so I promise I won’t be offended. Drop me an email at marc@lionsofliberty.com. I have some interesting guests planned for future shows, so stay tuned!


    KOL077 | The Unique Libertarian Framework: Homesteading, Scarcity, Conflict, Property Rights Sep 02, 2013
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 077. In this podcast, recorded during my morning constitutional (stroll/walk), I discuss my take on how best to view the libertarian idea: its origins and basic concepts, from homesteading to body-ownership, inalienability, intellectual property, "coercion" vs. aggression, state vs. government, tactics and strategy and terminology and semantics vs. substance, etc., drawing mostly on the ideas of Locke, Rothbard, and Hoppe. Relevant links: How We Come To Own Ourselves, Mises Daily (Sep. 7, 2006) (Mises.org blog discussion; audio version) The Problem with “Coercion” “What Libertarianism Is,” Mises Daily (August 21, 2009) Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach, 12:1 Journal of Libertarian Studies 51 (Spring 1996). A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse “Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes,” Mises Economics Blog (June 23, 2011) (C4SIF) Hoppe, chs. 1-2 of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995), p. 132. (From an earlier note of mine about this: I have since changed my mind on the some of the issues regarding the Hayekian “knowledge problem” and Leoni’s work in this regard, as I have noted in subsequent articles, such as the Knowledge, Calculation, Conflict, and Law article, footnote 5. Oh, that I had heeded Jeff Herbener’s comments on an earlier manuscript, but I either got these comments too late, or did not fully appreciate them at the time. More information on the calculation debate.)


    KOL076 | IP Debate with Chris LeRoux Aug 30, 2013
    Show notes

    Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 076. IP Debate with Chris (aka "Sid Non-Vicious") LeRoux, hosted by James Cox. LeRoux claims to be an anarcho-capitalist and former Randian but not a libertarian (he doesn't like labels, you see). He was recently arguing kinda for IP-but-not-really on Shanklin's podcast (see below), and contacted me about these issues. As you can see from the "debate" it's not clear what his position is or why he even wanted to debate me, or what he really disagrees with me on, but, .... here it is. Cox did a good guy trying to moderate, but it ended up being a mess, as it always is with people that are not clear on basic libertarian concepts and not totally opposed to IP. Transcript below. Relevant links: How We Come To Own Ourselves, Mises Daily (Sep. 7, 2006) (Mises.org blog discussion; audio version) A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 [based on paper presented at Law and Economics panel, Austrian Scholars Conference, Auburn, Alabama (April 17, 1999)] “Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes,” Mises Economics Blog (June 23, 2011) (C4SIF) Hoppe, chs. 1-2 of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach The Libertarian Approach to Negligence, Tort, and Strict Liability: Wergeld and Partial Wergeld The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression The Libertarian View on Fine Print, Shrinkwrap, Clickwrap Youtube: https://youtu.be/14POluaBwqU James Cox's original Youtube: https://youtu.be/wgJOeWU1Bek Shownotes (Grok): Debate Introduction and Setup [00:00:01 - 00:01:12] Host James Cox introduces the IP debate between Stephan Kinsella and Chris LeRoux, noting their positions (Kinsella against IP, LeRoux's stance to be clarified). Cox promotes his YouTube channel and outlines rules: 3-minute opening statements, alternating questions with 2-minute responses, initial 20-minute limit, possible extension. LeRoux agrees to go first. LeRoux's Opening: Contract Rights as Absolute [00:01:12 - 00:02:13] LeRoux claims Kinsella has admitted contract rights are absolute in an anarcho-capitalist system, not subject to scarcity or rivalrousness interpretations. He argues interfering with contracts (what Kinsella calls IP) is violence, violating nonviolence principles. LeRoux yields his remaining time. Kinsella's Opening: Clarifying Positions and IP Definition [00:02:18 - 00:05:19] Kinsella requests LeRoux clarify his position, noting prior exchanges where LeRoux rejected IP labels, libertarianism, and scarcity's role in property. Kinsella affirms contract rights but argues they can't replicate IP, as IP is in rem (against the world), while contracts are in personam (between parties). He defines IP as state-protected rights in non-rivalrous resources (ideas, patterns), including copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, deeming them illegitimate as they undermine real property rights. Contracts are title transfers, not binding promises; third parties can't "interfere" with contracts, only property. Initial Back-and-Forth: Contract as Core of Property [00:05:19 - 00:08:20] LeRoux asserts contract rights are all that exist; no need for scarcity/rivalrousness. Anything voluntarily traded is property, irrelevant to others' opinions. In anarcho-capitalism, contracts include third-party arbitration. Current IP issues: tax-funded, enforces involuntary contracts. Voluntary restrictions (e.g., no file sharing) must be upheld. Scarcity is subjective/physical, individually assessed. Kinsella critiques LeRoux's incoherence, clarifies scarcity as rivalry (not abundance), defends rivalrous resources as ownable (e.g., bucket of sand). Modern IP's flaws include involuntary application beyond taxes. Debate on Rivalrousness and Property Definitions [00:08:20 - 00:12:36] LeRoux calls rivalrousness an "anti-concept," nonsensical; voluntary trade defines property. Ideas drive property; can be commoditized/contracted (e.g., oppose copyright but discuss voluntary "do not redistribute" book contracts). Kinsella rebuts: contracts don't require ownership (e.g., conditional payments); human action uses rivalrous means. Enforceable book use restrictions possible but unlikely due to piracy incentives. Clarifying Disagreements and Contract Examples [00:12:40 - 00:16:30] LeRoux questions Kinsella on contracts without property (denied by Kinsella); defines property as exclusive control/use/disposal. Fraud involves trading unowned items. Debate shifts to open interchange per moderator. LeRoux asserts self-ownership includes labor; Kinsella prefers body ownership, questions "self" vagueness. Self-Ownership, Body Ownership, and Mind Control [00:16:30 - 00:19:00] LeRoux defends self-ownership encompassing mind/soul/ideas/actions; rejects body-only distinction as limiting. Kinsella argues mind is brain epiphenomenon; ownership enables actions/secrecy without owning thoughts separately. Interpersonal conflict arises from rivalrous resources; property rules resolve disputes. Hypothetical on Third-Party Book Copying [00:19:00 - 00:21:37] Cox poses scenario: Seller sells book to buyer; buyer's cousin borrows, copies, distributes without knowledge. LeRoux: Cousin innocent if no contract/trespass; issue is access violation. Current system illegitimate (tax-funded, involuntary). Kinsella: No liability for cousin; information unownable. Scarcity subjective in goods recognition, but rivalrousness objective. Property Origins, Ideas, and Conflict [00:21:37 - 00:24:31] Kinsella: All examples involve rivalrous things; secure property via first-use/contract. Predicts no IP-like system in free society. LeRoux: Minimal disagreements; simpler solution via contracts/property without scarcity/rivalrousness. Information controllable/ownable (e.g., ideas in mind under exclusive control via body ownership). Information Ownership and Invasive Scanning Example [00:24:31 - 00:29:42] LeRoux: Own mind/ideas/memories unless violence; critiques Kinsella's organ scanning example—aggression if invasive (trespass), not copying itself. Rejects arbitrary property limits; anything voluntarily traded is property/commodity a priori. Kinsella: Distinguishes property right vs. object; rivalrousness enables conflict, necessitating property rules. IP undercuts scarce resource rights. Intellectual Property Non-Existence and Origins [00:29:42 - 00:33:42] LeRoux: No IP; all property intellectual in origin (ideas drive action). Property prior to conflict/judgment; metaphysical fact (exclusive control absent violence). Even alone on island, property exists. Kinsella: Property normative/social; disputes always over rivalrous resources. Defining Key Terms: IP, Scarcity, Rivalrousness [00:33:42 - 00:38:02] LeRoux requests definitions. Kinsella: IP as positive laws (patent/copyright/trademark/trade secret) granting monopoly on intellect creations; incompatible with libertarian property. Scarcity as rivalry (conflict possible). LeRoux: Kinsella fights "ghost"; oppose state via anti-taxation/involuntary contracts, not scarcity/rivalrousness opinions. Contract Enforcement and Arbitration in Anarchism [00:38:02 - 00:42:53] Kinsella: Contracts enforceable; questions LeRoux on divergences. LeRoux: Contracts absolute, override scarcity opinions. Tangent on Kinsella's books/copyright: Kinsella explains automatic copyright, Creative Commons licensing; not hypocritical as system-imposed. LeRoux defends working within system. Rivalrousness Critique and Multi-Use Examples [00:42:53 - 00:50:10] Kinsella defines rivalrous: one-user-at-a-time resource, enabling conflict. LeRoux: Counter with shared use (e.g., rented house to multiple, tours); owner retains exclusive control, grants limited access—rivalrousness irrelevant. Kinsella: Shared use via contract (in personam); book "do not redistribute" as co-ownership or conditional damages. Predictions on Free Society Systems and Absurd Contracts [00:50:10 - 00:52:45] LeRoux: Absurd contracts unenforced in anarchism (no damages, costs deter arbitration). Kinsella: Can't punt to arbitration; disputes need norms (e.g., neighbor house use). LeRoux: Always check contract/trespass; rejects social contracts. Agreement on Key Scenarios and Divergences [00:52:45 - 00:57:06] Kinsella poses hypotheticals: Reverse engineering invention (LeRoux: allowed without contract); downloading Harry Potter without contract (LeRoux: no violation). Kinsella: Agrees, sees alignment. LeRoux: Disagrees on full agreement; his theory simpler without scarcity/rivalrousness. Property Rights, Homesteading, and Ownership Nuances [00:57:06 - 01:03:23] LeRoux: Ownership exclusive control (fact, not right); objective/metaphysical. Kinsella: Normative/social. Tangent on children: LeRoux parents as custodians, children homestead selves; Kinsella body ownership primary, not homesteaded (actor presupposes body). Covenants, Easements, and IP as Imposed Restrictions [01:03:23 - 01:07:15] Kinsella: Legitimate contractual easements/restrictive covenants (e.g., neighborhood rules). IP imposes use restrictions without contract—aggression. LeRoux: Agrees, current system enforces involuntary contracts. Final Clarifications and Agreements [01:07:15 - 01:12:00] Cox: Agreement on no state enforcement against non-parties; disagreements terminological. LeRoux: Still disputes rivalrousness centrality. Kinsella: IP bad, contracts good. Tangent on water diversion hypothetical: Kinsella deems aggression if harms downstream without contract. Tangents on Legal System and Personal Views [01:12:00 - 01:26:04] Discussion shifts: Defense attorneys legitimizing system (LeRoux critical); oaths/licensing opposed. Influences (objectivism); labels (anarcho-capitalist vs. libertarian)....


    Previous 1 40 41 42 43 44 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