Bert Schwitters alerted me to his book Liberating Liberty and upon my request, sent me a PDF. The book is apparently available only here, not on Amazon, and not in ebook form, and not available in PDF, epub, or other form online either. He describes some of his views and his book here too: Liberty and Libertarians. The book appears to have a subtitle but it is not clear what it is—perhaps “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and The Creator of Man,” but it’s not clear. This is obviously an amateur effort.
I wrote this back:
On your book, I honestly do not know why people would spend time compiling a message about liberty–that you will never make money on, so you are doing it only to spread the word–and then trap it behind a paywall and copyright. Why not just post it online so everyone can read it, or do you only want to reach rich westerners? I’m not criticizing, I am just continually mystified by the way some libertarians think. See: On Leading by Example and the Power of Attraction (Open Source Publishing, Creative Commons, Public Domain Publishing) and Authors: Don’t Make the Buddy Holly Mistake.
Anyway, I don’t have time to read a 600 page book at present, so asked Grok to analyze and compare it to my work. As I told him,
this is one reason I prefer the PDF (or epub)–you can analyze it and search it more easily. It’s even better than kindle books (which you also do not offer for some reason). I prefer pirated or open source (which is rare) books to purchased ones for that reason among others.
In any case, here is what Grok came up with. The second answer seems more accurate than the first, but I haven’t checked it closely yet.
Prompt: “Summarize this book in 1 to 2 pages. Compare it to the approach of Kinsella in the attached. Is Schwitter’s approach compatible with Kinsella’s views on property rights and libertarianism?”
Summary of Liberating Liberty by Bert Schwitters (2nd Edition Pre-print)
Liberating Liberty is a comprehensive philosophical, historical, and theological exploration of human liberty, rooted in the natural rights tradition as articulated in foundational documents like the American Declaration of Independence and the Dutch Act of Abjuration (1581). Published in 2024 by De Facto Publications, the 624-page book argues that true liberty stems from unalienable rights endowed by a Creator (God), emphasizing the pursuit of divine happiness (eudaimonia) as humanity’s ultimate purpose (telos). Schwitters, a Dutch author with a background in business and advocacy for informed choice (e.g., against EU regulatory overreach), frames the “cause of America” as universal, transcending national boundaries and aligning with the “cause of all Mankind” as described by Thomas Paine in Common Sense (1776).
The book opens with a foreword (pages 11–15) that draws parallels between the American and Dutch declarations of independence, both grounded in resistance to tyranny and the defense of natural rights. Schwitters highlights how the Dutch “Plakkaat van Verlatinghe” (Act of Abjuration) influenced the American Founders, positioning liberty as a divine endowment rather than a governmental grant. He critiques modern threats to this liberty, including the “un-making” of Man and God through secular philosophies, scientism, and state overreach. The central thesis is that the Declaration of Independence’s preamble—affirming rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—defines America’s telos as securing these rights to enable individuals to achieve oneness with God (“I am” as divine beingness). This pursuit requires metanoia (a change of mind, akin to Plato’s periagoge), turning from temporal shadows to eternal truth.
Structured across dozens of chapters (outlined in the table of contents on pages 7–9), the book unfolds in thematic sections:
- Historical and Foundational Analysis (Early Chapters): Schwitters examines the “Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man,” contrasting divine order with human utopias. He discusses the “Great Between” (the tension between timeless reality and temporal existence), the “Eclipse of Reality” (loss of metaphysical awareness), and the Declaration’s self-evident truths. Chapters on natural law, mutual recognition, the Bill of Rights, and American exceptionalism explore how the U.S. Founders sought to secure unalienable rights against tyranny, including critiques of slavery, the Civil War, and Lincoln’s rhetoric as a tool for centralizing power.
- Philosophical and Theological Critique (Middle Sections): Delving into metaphysics, Schwitters addresses the “State of Nature” vs. “State of Society,” property definitions, and the defense of rights. He critiques 19th- and 20th-century “murderers of God” (e.g., Nietzsche’s Übermensch, Hegel, Darwin, scientism) for redirecting humanity from divine telos to materialist ideologies. Topics include the Big Bang as a metaphor for origins, causality, logos (reason/word as divine architecture), free will, faith, love, and pneumapathology (soul-disease). He links these to modern evils like eugenics, forced sterilization (Buck v. Bell), abortion (Roe v. Wade), and the deconstruction of life, medicine, and society.
- Contemporary Applications and Warnings (Later Chapters): Schwitters warns of the “deconstruction of liberty” through human rights distortions, rule of law erosion, and the rise of the “Forgotten Man” vs. Übermensch. He advocates the “Negative Way” (apophatic theology), conscience as sacred property, and creation ex nihilo via the Word. The book critiques ideologies like scientism, DNA reductionism, and business-driven moral decay, urging a return to divine oneness. It concludes with reflections on God’s image in Man, references/footnotes (pages 593–614), and an index of names.
Throughout, Schwitters employs a hybrid punctuation style and distinguishes “Man” (humanity) from “man” (male) for clarity. The tone is erudite, blending reason, revelation, and historical narrative to argue that liberty’s erosion stems from rejecting the Logos (divine reason) for erratic “life force.” He portrays threats like revolutions, ideologies, and state power as obstructing Man’s pursuit of eudaimonia, calling for liberation through alignment with eternal truths. The book is an homage to the Declaration’s divine essence, relevant amid modern crises, and ends on a hopeful note for reclaiming Man’s spiritual self.
(Word count: ~650, equivalent to about 1.5 pages in standard formatting.)
Comparison to Kinsella’s Approach in Legal Foundations of a Free Society
Stephan Kinsella’s Legal Foundations of a Free Society (3rd printing, 2025; 804 pages) is a collection of essays, reviews, interviews, and speeches on libertarian legal theory, emphasizing anarcho-capitalism, property rights, and critiques of intellectual property (IP). With a foreword by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, it draws on the Austrian economics and natural rights tradition of Murray Rothbard, focusing on praxeology (the logic of human action), argumentation ethics, and self-ownership as foundations for a stateless society. Kinsella, a patent attorney turned libertarian theorist, argues for justice based on reason and non-aggression, rejecting positivism, social contract theory, and utilitarianism as flawed.
Kinsella’s approach is secular, rationalist, and dialogical: Rights emerge from self-ownership (each person controls their body), original appropriation (homesteading scarce resources), and voluntary contracts (title transfer). He defends punishment as restitution, critiques inalienability in contracts, and argues against IP as non-scarce “ideas” that violate property norms. Parts on libertarianism define it as opposition to aggression; legal theory covers causation, contracts, and legislation; IP sections (e.g., “Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years”) assert ideas aren’t ownable. Reviews and interviews reinforce anti-statism, praising works like de Jasay’s Against Politics and critiquing capitalism’s moral underpinnings.
Schwitters’ approach, by contrast, is theistic and metaphysical, grounding liberty in divine endowment (Creator’s unalienable rights) and telos (pursuit of eudaimonia via metanoia). He integrates theology (Logos as divine architecture, God as “I am”), history (Declarations of Independence), and critiques of modernity (scientism, eugenics) to defend rights. While Kinsella uses praxeological deduction and argumentation ethics (e.g., Hoppe’s influence), Schwitters relies on revelation, reason, and biblical exegesis, viewing liberty’s threats as spiritual (e.g., “murderers of God” eroding the soul). Kinsella focuses on practical legal applications (e.g., contract theory, anti-IP), whereas Schwitters emphasizes broader philosophical storms (19th-20th centuries) and divine oneness, with less emphasis on economics or anarchy.
Compatibility with Kinsella’s Views on Property Rights and Libertarianism
Yes, Schwitters’ approach is largely compatible with Kinsella’s, though they differ in foundational emphasis. Both affirm natural rights, self-ownership, and property as essential to liberty, rejecting state fiat and aggression. Schwitters’ definition of property (e.g., “Defining ‘Property'” chapter) aligns with Kinsella’s: scarce resources appropriated originally or via voluntary exchange, secured against invasion. Schwitters’ defense of unalienable rights (Life, Liberty) mirrors Kinsella’s non-aggression principle and punishment theory (restitution for trespass). Both critique statism—Schwitters via historical tyrannies, Kinsella via anarcho-capitalism—and oppose utilitarianism/social contracts.
The key difference is metaphysical: Schwitters’ theism (rights from Creator) complements Kinsella’s secular praxeology, as libertarianism accommodates both (e.g., Rothbard blended natural law with theology). Kinsella’s Hoppean foreword echoes Schwitters’ natural law roots (personhood, appropriation, contract), suggesting harmony. Schwitters’ anti-eugenics/abortion stance fits Kinsella’s rights-based ethics (e.g., against aggression on the body). Incompatibilities are minor: Schwitters’ divine telos might seem “mystical” to Kinsella’s rationalism, but neither contradicts core libertarian property norms. Overall, Schwitters provides a spiritual overlay to Kinsella’s framework, making them mutually reinforcing for a theistic libertarian.
***
Prompt: “consider also https://www.liberatingliberty.com/liberty-and-libertarians/ and this post and others by kinsella linked there https://stephankinsella.com/2011/07/down-with-the-fourth-of-july/ https://stephankinsella.com/2009/07/happy-we-should-restore-the-monarchy-and-rejoin-britain-day/ … [and others]”
Revised Comparison and Compatibility Analysis Incorporating Additional Sources
Building on the previous summary of Schwitters’ Liberating Liberty and comparison to Kinsella’s Legal Foundations of a Free Society, the newly provided resources—Schwitters’ article “Liberty and Libertarians” (from https://www.liberatingliberty.com/liberty-and-libertarians/) and Kinsella’s various blog posts and linked articles—offer deeper insights into their respective views. These sources highlight tensions in historical interpretation and metaphysical foundations, while reinforcing alignments on core libertarian principles like property rights and anti-statism. Below, I integrate these to refine the comparison and reassess compatibility.
Schwitters’ Approach in “Liberty and Libertarians”
In this article, Schwitters expands on themes from his book, framing liberty as a divine endowment inseparable from its Creator-origin, as per the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” He contrasts the “libido liberandi” (urge to liberate liberty) with the “libido dominandi” (will to power), warning that detaching liberty from God leads to “false freedoms” that serve utopian ideologies, echoing Friedrich Hayek’s critique in The Road to Serfdom of redefining freedom as power or wealth, which paves the way to serfdom. Schwitters aligns with classical liberals like Ludwig von Mises and Hayek on economic liberty but insists on a metaphysical “metaxy” (the “Great In-Between” connecting secular and divine realms), where true freedom arises from oneness with the Creator (“Freedom is God,” quoting Emil Bock). He subtly critiques secular libertarians (e.g., via Ayn Rand’s quote on checking premises for contradictions) for potentially ignoring the Declaration’s divine premise, suggesting this creates inconsistencies in viewing liberty as purely rational or material. Property rights are implied as part of unalienable rights secured by limited government deriving powers from the governed, but Schwitters emphasizes conscience and spiritual self as the “most sacred property.” He views the state as a tool to secure rights, not an end, and critiques utopias (e.g., socialism) for suppressing dissent and declaring God the enemy.
This reinforces Schwitters’ theistic, pro-Declaration stance: the American founding is a positive, universal “cause of Mankind” rooted in natural law and divine telos, enabling eudaimonia (divine happiness) through metanoia (spiritual turning).
Kinsella’s Approach in the Provided Posts and Links
Kinsella’s writings, as seen in the queried posts (e.g., “Down with the Fourth of July,” “Happy We-Should-Restore-The-Monarchy-And-Rejoin-Britain Day”) and linked articles (e.g., on LewRockwell.com), reflect a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist skepticism of the American founding. He argues against celebrating Independence Day, quoting H.L. Mencken to portray the Revolution as replacing British “oppression” with worse American tyranny—higher taxes, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and no real liberty gains. Satirically, he suggests rejoining Britain under monarchy, implying it might have been less intrusive than the democratic republic that emerged. Kinsella endorses Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s view (via Lew Rockwell’s post) that the Constitution was a “counter-revolution” expanding government power beyond the near-anarchist Articles of Confederation, enabling the modern leviathan state. In “Would YOU sign the Declaration of Independence?”, he (and contributors) argue no, as it sparked centralization, wars (Civil War, WWI, WWII), imperialism, slavery’s persistence, and global calamities like the Holocaust and nuclear bombings—preferring King George III’s “modest taxes and rule from afar.”
Other linked posts amplify this: “The Murdering, Thieving, Enslaving, Unlibertarian Continental Army” critiques the Revolution’s violence and hypocrisy; “Black Armbands for ‘Constitution Day'” mourns the document as statist; “Revising the American Revolution” and “Untold Truths About the American Revolution” (citing Jeff Hummel and others) portray it as elitist, tax-driven, and counter-revolutionary; “Down with the Bill of Rights” and related pieces see even amendments as flawed or enabling federal overreach (e.g., the 14th Amendment’s problems). Kinsella ties this to libertarianism: true liberty requires anarchy, not minarchism or democracy; property rights stem from self-ownership and homesteading, not state documents. He critiques the founding as unlibertarian for endorsing conscription, slavery, and empire from the start (e.g., “Bill Marina on American Imperialism from the Beginning”).
Kinsella’s secular, praxeological focus (influenced by Hoppe and Rothbard) prioritizes non-aggression, voluntary contracts, and anti-IP, viewing the state—including the U.S. founding—as inherently aggressive and rights-violating.
Updated Comparison
- Foundations of Liberty and Rights: Both ground rights in natural law—Schwitters divinely (Creator-endowed unalienable rights), Kinsella rationally (self-ownership, argumentation ethics). Property is central: Schwitters sees it as sacred (e.g., conscience as property), aligning with Kinsella’s title-transfer theory and opposition to aggression.
- Role of the State: Shared anti-statism—Schwitters critiques tyrannical governments and utopias; Kinsella demands full anarchy. But Schwitters accepts limited government to secure rights (per Declaration), while Kinsella sees even the Founders’ minarchism as a slippery slope to expansion (echoing Hoppe on the Constitution).
- Historical View of American Founding: Stark contrast. Schwitters reveres the Declaration as divine-inspired, exceptional, and universal, drawing parallels to Dutch independence. Kinsella derides it as hypocritical, leading to more oppression, wars, and statism—better under British monarchy or Articles of Confederation.
- Metaphysical vs. Secular Emphasis: Schwitters’ theism (Logos, metanoia, eudaimonia) adds a spiritual layer, critiquing secularism as contradictory (via Rand quote). Kinsella’s approach is atheistic/agnostic, focusing on logic and economics, without divine appeals.
- Critiques of Modernity: Overlap in opposing scientism, eugenics, and power grabs (Schwitters on “murderers of God”; Kinsella on state imperialism), but Schwitters frames it spiritually, Kinsella pragmatically.
Compatibility Assessment
Schwitters’ approach remains partially compatible with Kinsella’s on property rights and libertarianism. Core alignments include natural rights, non-aggression, voluntary exchange, and critiques of state overreach—Schwitters’ divine endowment complements Kinsella’s self-ownership without direct conflict, as libertarianism (e.g., Rothbard) accommodates theism. Both oppose utilitarianism, social contracts, and positivism, favoring reason-based justice.
However, incompatibilities sharpen with these sources:
- On the Founding Documents: Schwitters’ veneration of the Declaration clashes with Kinsella’s dismissal as unlibertarian and causative of evils. Kinsella’s anti-Constitution stance (as power expansion) contradicts Schwitters’ positive view of the founding as rights-securing.
- Secular vs. Theistic Premises: Schwitters’ article hints at contradictions in secular libertarianism, potentially viewing Kinsella’s atheism as undermining the Declaration’s logic. Kinsella ignores divine aspects, focusing on empirical failures.
- Anarchy vs. Minarchism: Schwitters implies acceptance of consensual government; Kinsella demands statelessness, seeing the Revolution as a statist coup.
Overall, compatible on abstract rights/liberty (e.g., property as non-aggressable), but strained on history and metaphysics. A theistic anarcho-capitalist might bridge them, but Schwitters’ divine telos and pro-Declaration optimism conflict with Kinsella’s cynical revisionism. Schwitters could argue Kinsella’s premises need “checking” for ignoring the Creator; Kinsella might see Schwitters as sentimental about flawed documents.
Prompt: “does schwitters oppose intellectual property law? Does he mention Hoppe or rothbard? Or Kinsella?”
Schwitters opposes certain applications of intellectual property law, particularly patents on human embryos, genes, or inventions that require the destruction of human life, as discussed in his chapter on the legal definition of a “human embryo” (pages 375-378). He views such patents as violations of human dignity and integrity, aligning with his broader critiques of eugenics, scientism, and the deconstruction of life. However, he does not express opposition to intellectual property law in general (e.g., no critiques of copyrights, trademarks, or non-biotech patents), and his references to IP are limited and context-specific.
Schwitters mentions Hans-Hermann Hoppe (pages 532, 536) and Murray Rothbard (pages 135, 394-395, 425-426, 533) multiple times, drawing on their ideas about property, scarcity, scientism, free will, and libertarian history, though with some critical nuance (e.g., questioning aspects of Hoppe’s property-based moral framework). He does not mention Stephan Kinsella.
