StephanKinsella.com

I was long friends with Tibor Machan (see Remembering Tibor Machan, Libertarian Mentor and Friend: Reflections on a Giant). We corresponded for years and met many times in Auburn when I would attend Mises Institute events. When I lived in Philadelphia, from 1994–97, we would occasionally get together when he was passing through. As I recall, he introduced me one time to Patrick Burke. I think we had lunch together. Burke was a nice and gentle man, from what I dimly recall, a religion professor at Temple in Philly. He has apparently passed away in the meantime, as has Tibor.

In any case, I read his book No Harm: Ethical Principles for a Free Market (1994), which had just been published and which we had discussed at  lunch. It was decent but flawed, if earnest. I published a critical review of it in Tibor’s journal Reason Papers in 1995, Stephan Kinsella, “Book Review of Patrick Burke, No Harm: Ethical Principles for a Free Market (1994),” Reason Papers No. 20 (Fall 1995), p. 135. Ultimate I critique his “harm” criterion, just as I critique a similar the similar approach opposing “imposing costs” on others by J.C. (Jan) Lester in his book Escape from Leviathan: Libertarianism without Justificationism.

See, e.g,. Stephan Kinsella, “A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights,” in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) (LFFS), n.16 and accompanying text; idem, “Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights,” in LFFS, at n.3 and accompanying text; idem, “‘Aggression’ versus ‘Harm’ in Libertarianism,” Mises Economics Blog (Dec. 16, 2009); and idem, “Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value,” StephanKinsella.com (June 12, 2011).

Burke’s focus on “harm” as the key principle behind rights, instead of aggression, leads him into error, for example accepting the legitimacy of blackmail and defamation law, and even laws banning dueling, since “a challenge to a duel is akin to blackmail.” His view of contracts is also flawed since it is based on the notion of detrimental reliance (which I critique in “A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability,” in LFFS, at Part I.E).

My book Legal Foundations of a Free Society concerns justice. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes in his Foreword, “The question as to what is justice and what constitutes a just society is as old as philosophy itself. Indeed, it arises in everyday life even long before any systematic philosophizing is to begin.” In ch. 2 (n.3), I quote the classic formulation from Justinian: “Justice is the constant and perpetual wish to render every one his due.… The maxims of law are these: to live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due.”

I came across a nice quote about justice from esteemed Louisiana federal judge Alvin Rubin (2) (1920–91), from the case U.S. v. McDaniels, 379 F.Supp. 1243 (E.D. La. 1974): [continue reading…]

Dear Mr. Kinsella,

I hope this message finds you well. I have a question regarding the use of performative contradiction in argumentation ethics. I’d really appreciate it if you could share your thoughts.

My question is, without using performative contradiction, self-ownership is naturally true in argumentation since argumentation presupposes self-ownership. It is like Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem that Gödel found a way of allowing mathematics to talk about itself. It is self-referential. In the case of argumentation, if A owns B, there is no need for an argumentation between A and B over the ownership of C, A would just own C by default. In this case, in order to have an argumentation, A and B must be self-owned. [continue reading…]

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (56.8MB)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 437.

My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella. We focused here mostly on property rights and other precursor concepts. We plan to have a followup discussion to get into the nitty gritty of the application of these more basic concepts and principles to the topic of IP. (Spotify)

Shownotes:

In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz engages in a thought-provoking discussion and debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian writer and patent attorney, on the moral status of intellectual property. The complexity of the issue sparks a deep dive into the ethical and legal dimensions of IP rights, leading to a conversation so rich that it had to be continued in a future episode.

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (130.2MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 437.

I was a guest this week on Morgan Meets the Eye, with Evan Morgan (recorded July 26, 2024). We discussed a variety of issues, including argumentation ethics, self ownership, using (possessing) vs. owning and possession vs. ownership, parents and children, my estoppel theory of rights, the state and law, punishment vs. restitution, corporations and limited liability, and so on. Many of these issues are touched on in my book Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023). [continue reading…]

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:33:08 — 80.6MB)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 436.

I was interviewed today by Kelly Patrick of the Kelly Patrick Show ep. 777. I fielded questions from his The Kelly Patrick Show Political Chat facebook group, mostly questions from nonlibertarians or people critical of libertarianism. We discussed the prospects of liberty, activism, why people are not persuaded by libertarian arguments, the prospects of the Libertarian Party, intellectual property, anarchism, and so on.

Q:

Hello prof. Kinsella. I would like to ask you a quick question. Do you consider libertarian as synonymous with anarcho-capitalist? Obviously there are many libertarians who are more classical liberals, but a libertarian consistent with his premises should be an anarchist, in this sense would he be a synonym for anarcho-capitalist? [continue reading…]