StephanKinsella.com

Talking with Jeff Tucker, he wondered how I ever got sucked into the Bitcoin Maximalism cult. He obviously sides with people like Aaron Day, Roger Ver, Steve Patterson, the ones who bemoan the “hijacking” of Bitcoin. See Steve Patterson, Hijacking Bitcoin: The Hidden History of BTC. Am I a maxi? Let’s think about it.

I did speak at the conference Jeff arranged in 2013: “The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender,” Crypto-Currency Conference: Bitcoin and the Future of Money (Atlanta, Oct. 5, 2013) (KOL085 podcast). I had recently lost a bet about bitcoin with Vijay Boyapati, as I recount in Comments on Block and Barnett on the Optimum Quantity of Money (see also Bitcoin Confiscation vs. Gold Confiscation). [continue reading…]

Our views evolve over time. My core libertarian beliefs have not changed much in the last thirty years, as I note in the preface to Legal Foundations of a Free Society, except for a couple of areas that I explicitly call out, and for some matters of terminology and usage:

In one case I now disagree with something I originally wrote; I retained the original text and added an explanatory note (chapter 13, Part III.C). And in chapter 9 (Part III.C), I note that, regarding my earlier criticism of Rothbard’s argument for inalienability: “I now think it is possible that his approach is more compatible with my own than I originally realized.” But otherwise, I today still stand by most of the original content of those articles, in terms of substance. However, as noted several places in the text, I often now use terminology somewhat differently, e.g., the term state instead of government; rivalrous or “conflictable” instead of scarce; using the word property to refer to the relation between humans with respect to owned resources, instead of referring to the owned resource itself, and so on. “I have in some cases updated the text to my current, preferred usage, but not always since it would have been too drastic and tedious.

As for the change of mind indicated above, ch. 13, “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” as my Introductory Note to Part III.C explains, “In this section (Part III.C), I relied heavily on Bruno Leoni’s interpretation of Mises’s and Hayek’s views on the economic calculation problem and his related criticism of legislation by analogy to central economic planning. Subsequently, I gained a deeper understanding of the difference between Mises’s and Hayek’s approach to this issue, after Joseph Salerno initiated the “dehomogenization” debate.” ¹

But earlier in my development I did change my mind or modify my views on several issues, and in the ensuing years on some applications. Here are a few, in roughly chronological order:

• God. I initially was strongly Catholic, having been reared that way and attending 12 years of Catholic school, serving as an altar boy, and so on. When I was around 14 or 15 I started to develop serious doubts and soon became a die-hard atheist. I have not changed my view but I have become less militant and less hostile to religion, as I see now that it necessarily encodes and encapsulates much practical wisdom, and is preferable to the modern religion of statism and state worship.
•  Anarchy. Initially a fairly orthodox Objectivist (starting around 10th grade in high school) and thus minarchist and hostile to anarchy, by law school I was a full-fledged Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist (though I prefer the term anarcho-libertarian now).
• Intellectual Property. Initially I assumed IP must be legitimate but was dissatisfied with arguments for it, when I decided to switch, as a young attorney, from oil & gas law to patent law in 1993 or so, I turned my attention to this issue and tried to come up with a better justification. The result was my complete change of mind and rejection of all forms of IP.
• Abortion. Initially pro-choice on Objectivist and libertarian grounds, I for a long time held the view that early-term fetuses don’t have rights, late-term fetuses probably do, and thus only late term abortion should be prohibited. My view has only changed a bit here: first, after becoming a parent, I started to feel more strongly that even early-term abortion is usually immoral, even if it’s not murder; and now, I believe it should not be outlawed even in the later term, at least not by the criminal law of any external legal system.
• Rothbard’s Argument for Inalienability. I originally criticized Rothbard’s argument for inalienability. With a deeper understanding for the argument for self-ownership, based on the work of Hoppe and my own work, and thus for the argument for inalienability and against voluntary slavery contracts, I think Rothbard’s argument is basically correct, even if it’s incomplete and fairly sketchy, or that at least this is one way to construe it (even if his own view of contract and “implicit theft” and debtor’s prison is incompatible with his inalienability views). See LFFS, “A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability,” Part III.C.1; see also “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract.”
• Israel. I was always strongly Israel, having written an embarrassing Randian-style defense in college, ² and a controversial article on LewRockwell arguing for moving Israel to Utah, ³, but arguments in light of the recent Israel-Gaza conflict, by Hans Hoppe, Saifedean Ammous, and others ⁴, and getting more educated on the history of Israel, have made me reevaluate some my views. At this point I feel like my heart is with Israel, but my head recognizes what Israel has done and is doing cannot be justified.
• Ukraine. I still despise the commies and think Russia is in violation of international law and evil, and I still do not believe NATO is an actual threat to Russia ⁵ and I believe Ukraine has the right to join NATO and the EU, but my view on this has been softened by the anti-war types and Hoppe’s comments. ⁶

1.  Knowledge vs. Calculation, Mises Blog (July 11, 2006) .[↩]
2. Column: Israel: Victim of Bloodlust in Middle East?, LSU Daily Reveille, June 21, 1988. [↩]
3.  “New Israel: A Win-Win-Win Proposal,” LewRockwell.com (October 1, 2001). [↩]
4. Saifedean’s podcast; debate with Walter Block; debate with Yaron Brook; discussion with Jeremy Hammond; interview with Robert Breedlove; Hoppe on Walter Block and Israel. [↩]
5. International Law, Libertarian Principles, and the Russia-Ukraine War. [↩]
6. “The War in the Ukraine in Libertarian Perspective,” LewRockwell.com (PFS 2023; Sept. 28, 2023). [↩]

This is a followup to comments on KOL418 | Corporations, Limited Liability, and the Title Transfer Theory of Contract, with Jeff Barr: Part II.

For more on this, see Stephan Kinsella, “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract,” Papian Press Working Paper #1 (Sep. 7, 2024) and “A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability,” chap. 9 of Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston: Papinian Press, 2023).

Brian‘s comment on KOL418: [continue reading…]

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (14.9MB)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 443.

“Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach,” 2024 Annual Meeting, Property and Freedom Society, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 22, 2024).

Panel discussion:

[continue reading…]

A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe was published today, Sep. 21, 2024, at the 2024 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society, in Bodrum, Turkey. More information here.

Some photos from the ceremony announcing the book are below.

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (63.6MB)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 442.

This is a debate between me and Walter Block about voluntary slavery contracts, hosted by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project as part of his “Together Strong” debate series. (See previous episode KOL426)

Unedited transcript (from Youtube) below. [continue reading…]

As I recounted in “How I Became a Libertarian,” in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023), I was fortunate to meet Murray Rothbard before he died, in October 1994 at the John Randolph Club meeting near Washington, D.C, where he autographed by copy of Man, Economy, and State: “To Stephan: For Man & Economy, and against the state –Best regards, Murray Rothbard.” ¹

I had forgotten some of details of that trip but just came across a letter to a former law school classmate from 1996 which has some details about my first meeting with Rothbard, Hoppe, et al. Here is an edited excerpt: [continue reading…]

1. I mention this also in The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory. [↩]