A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with the shadow on the wall. Speak what you think [90]now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said to-day.—”Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.”—Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras[186] was misunderstood, and Socrates,[187] and Jesus, and Luther,[188] and Copernicus,[189] and Galileo,[190] and Newton,[191] and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. 1
Jorge Muñoz, host of the Libertad Individual Youtube channel, interviewed me recently: The Case Against Intellectual Property (Sept. 3, 2026; recorded Sept. 1, 2026). Shownotes and transcript below.
Shownotes:
Join us for a live conversation with renowned libertarian legal scholar, patent attorney, and author Stephan Kinsella. We dive deep into the foundations of libertarian legal theory, the fundamental flaws of Intellectual Property (IP), and how genuine property rights are rooted in natural rights and Austrian Economics. [continue reading…]
Everyone is freaking out about the Lindsay Clancy trial and the hung jury. 1 Clancy, who had been having serious mental problems, strangled and killed her three children—Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months—in Duxbury, Massachusetts, on January 24, 2023, and was on trial for first-degree murder. She did not dispute that she killed them. Her defense was lack of criminal responsibility, commonly called an insanity defense. The jury, consisting of 9 women (all white) and 3 men, two white and one black, heard about five weeks of trial and then deliberated for seven days—roughly 38 to 40 hours—and could not reach a verdict. According to later interviews with jurors in the majority, 11 jurors would have voted to acquit on the basis of insanity, while the black male juror, the only non-white member of the panel, would have voted guilty. 2A mistrial was declared on September 4, 2026. Because a hung jury is not an acquittal, prosecutors may retry the case.
The left basically defended Clancy, some on the grounds of postpartum psychosis, but some on ridiculous grounds—e.g., that she didn’t actually commit the murders, or that it was excused because of abuse by her husband or “the Patriarchy.” (She has admitted the killings; her own lawyer has rejected the online theories blaming her ex-husband. See NBC News.) The right, partly in response to these ridiculous left/feminist takes, started blaming women in general for siding with Clancy, saying this shows women should not have the right to vote, and so on. Many on the right and many libertarians celebrated the lone juror who refused to acquit even though, according to interviews with other jurors, he admitted that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. (The holdout himself has not spoken publicly; that account comes from other jurors.) [continue reading…]
See, e.g., Facebook posts by Rob Wicks; Mark Edge; Mark Edge 2; this tweet. I haven’t followed it and am only using it here, as is my wont, to illustrate and discuss more general libertarian and related principles. [↩]
I was raised in Ascension Parish, in Galvez/Prairieville, Louisiana, which is next to Gonzales, the soi-disant JambalayaCapital of the World—it has held its annual Jambalaya Festival annually since 1968. And yes, we specialize there in Cajun, or brown, jambalaya—similar to African/Nigerian jollof rice—not the Creole or “red” jambalaya made with tomato paste and more popular in New Orleans and other parts. 1
As I noted in my little biography, 2 I attended private Catholic schools in East Baton Rouge Parish—St. George Elementary and Catholic High School—from first grade through high school, unlike my brother and sister and all the local kids, who attended the local public schools, such as Galvez Elementary and St. Amant High School. [continue reading…]
Yesterday (Sep. 5, 2026) I participated in the debate: “Should Free Cities Protect Intellectual Property?” with IP attorney Brian O’Beirne, moderated by Tipolis CFO Alex Voss, at the Free Cities Foundation annual Conference, Próspera, Honduras, Sept. 4–7 (Sat. Sept. 5, 2026) (SKprofile; O’Beirne profile) (see Free Cities Foundation Annual Conference — Próspera 2026). Topic was billed as: “Is the concept of intellectual property ethically defensible? And: do Free Cities have more to gain or lose by upholding internationally recognised intellectual property standards?”
I spoke for 4 minutes, then Brian, and then we had an exchange and audience questions for the remaining time. It was very civil unlike some other debates I’ve participated in. 1 One thing I liked is that Brian started off admitting, first, that he has some sympathy for my anti-IP position, and, second, that he acknowledged that opposition to IP is the libertarian position–unlike other libertarian IP proponents who claim that IP rights are compatible with libertarianism, if not the “heart and core” (Ayn Rand) of property rights 2 or, perhaps even worse, or maybe just stupider sounding, “primary property” (Galambos). 3[continue reading…]
I know you’re probably a busy guy, but if you have a minute or two, I’d like to get your thoughts on, or established articles about, property rights as it pertains to data as physical matter. I have started writing an article about this matter, but before I get too far along, I’d like to see if there have been others who have already tackled this. My essential consideration is how to apply a property-rights framework to the physical matter in which data is contained (EM waves, light pulses, radio, etc.). I initially came up with a simple analogy of driving your personal car along a roadway owned by Others (private or govt as the case may be) and someone physically barricading your car to be able to search it for whatever purpose (without voluntary consent). Similarly, the data we send on our phones which is transformed (homesteaded) by our labor by the use of software on our phone that digitizes the data and packages it into whatever physical EM signal is used to transmit. The data signal is the car on the road, but once that data packet is distributed by the wireless router through fiber-optic cables owned by some private entity, it has now gone onto the street and so becomes subject to some agreement between the owner of the signal and the transport media (fiber cable). Maybe what I am wondering is simply what the “fine print” user agreements amount to when agreeing to use an app. Anyway, I would appreciate any feedback at all regarding this concept, even if just a few quick points of reference or critique.
My father was born in 1934 in the East Prussian city of Königsberg. In January 1945, he escaped on one of the last ships from his besieged and later fatally destroyed hometown. He was an East Prussian through and through, and in his library he had the collected works of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), the Königsberg philosopher of the Enlightenment. I still remember well that my father pointed out to me–with a smile–that Kant’s original works were not entirely easy to read, but he nevertheless encouraged me to work through them; fortunately, he also helped me with references to more comprehensible secondary literature. This is how I gained a certain preformation or even a preference for the great philosopher of the Enlightenment. [continue reading…]
I have long cited David Kelley’s great 1980s lectures, the Foundations of Knowledge lecture series. It used to be sold on audiocassette by Laissez-Faire Books, as I recall; now on Youtube. These were recorded at various conferences in the 1980s, e.g. The Jefferson School Conference, San Diego, 1985; Portland Institute Conference, 1986. They include:
Recent Comments