What is it that I do? On Libertarian Legal Theory, Scholars, Academics, and Intellectuals

by Stephan Kinsella on May 31, 2026

I’m never quite sure how to describe what it is that I do (my avocation, not my (former) vocation(s)). ¹

Is it political theory? Political philosophy? Libertarian theory? Libertarian legal theory? Legal theory/jurisprudence? Moral theory? Ethics? Metaethics? ² Philosophy? Isn’t all libertarian theory really libertarian legal theory, in the end, since our focus is on what institutional uses of force are just, that is, what laws are just? What property rights there are?

Am I an intellectual? A scholar? An academic?

A few Grok searches helped sort some of this out. Bottom line:

On libertarian (legal) theory:

Your output—drawing on positive legal expertise (civil law, IP, etc.), Austrian economics, philosophy, history, and rights theory to advance libertarian ideas on what law should be—fits best as “libertarian legal theory” (or “libertarian jurisprudence”).

… If describing for audiences:

Academic/law: “Libertarian legal theorist” or “scholar in libertarian jurisprudence.”

Broader libertarian: “Libertarian theorist, with emphasis on legal foundations.”

Your own site/books: You’ve used similar phrasing effectively.

This framing honors the normative core (“what laws are just”) while respecting the positive legal scholarship that informs it.

On types of thinkers:

An academic scholar is common (tenured professor doing research).

An independent scholar can also be an intellectual or public intellectual.

A public intellectual could be an academic (e.g., writing op-eds), independent, or neither.

Not every academic is a deep scholar (some prioritize teaching/admin); not every intellectual is a scholar (some lack specialized depth).

you would reasonably qualify as an independent scholar (and potentially a public intellectual in libertarian circles), with strong elements of scholar and intellectual.

Libertarian Legal Theory: Clarifying the Distinctions Between Political Philosophy, Jurisprudence, Legal Theory, and Libertarian Thought (Grok)

Political philosophy, political science, jurisprudence, legal theory, philosophy, and libertarian variants overlap but differ in focus, methods, and goals. Here’s a clear breakdown tailored to your background as a practicing attorney with engineering roots, publications in both positive law (Louisiana/civil law, IP, oil & gas, international investment) and normative libertarian work.

Core Distinctions

Philosophy (broadly): The study of fundamental questions using reason, logic, and conceptual analysis. It includes metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, etc. It’s normative (what should be) and often abstract.
Political philosophy: A branch of philosophy focused on normative questions about justice, rights, authority, the state, liberty, equality, and the ideal political order. Think Locke, Rawls, Nozick. It asks: What is a just society? What rights do individuals have? When is coercion justified? It’s not primarily empirical.
Political science: More empirical and descriptive (what is). It uses data, models, statistics, case studies, and methods from social science to study actual political systems, behavior, institutions, power dynamics, voting, etc. It can include “political theory” subfields, but the dominant modern approach is positivist/scientific rather than purely normative.
Jurisprudence (legal philosophy): The philosophical study of law itself—its nature, sources, validity, interpretation, and purpose. It overlaps heavily with political philosophy but is anchored in legal systems and concepts (e.g., Hart’s The Concept of Law, natural law vs. positivism debates). Topics include: What makes something “law”? Rights/obligations, adjudication, political obligation. In many law schools (especially common-law or mixed systems), it’s taught as part of legal education.
Legal theory (or legal philosophy): Often used interchangeably with jurisprudence, but sometimes broader or more applied. It analyzes legal concepts, structures, and foundations, drawing on philosophy, economics, history, etc. It can be descriptive (positive legal theory: how law works) or normative (what law should be). Your work on IP, contracts, causation, or title-transfer theory fits here when focused on legal mechanics.
Libertarian theory (or libertarianism): A normative political philosophy centered on the non-aggression principle (NAP), self-ownership, individual rights (especially property), voluntary cooperation, and minimizing (or eliminating) coercive state power. It draws from economics (Austrian school), history, ethics, and rights theory. It addresses broad questions of justice, society, and governance.
Libertarian legal theory: A specialized application of libertarian (political) philosophy to law and legal institutions. It asks: What would a legal system look like grounded in libertarian principles? How should property, contracts, torts, crime, restitution, and dispute resolution work? It critiques positive (existing) law and proposes alternatives, often favoring polycentric/common-law-like systems over legislation. Key influences: Rothbard, Hayek, Leoni, Barnett, and your own contributions.

Your Libertarian Work: Best Description?

Your output—drawing on positive legal expertise (civil law, IP, etc.), Austrian economics, philosophy, history, and rights theory to advance libertarian ideas on what law should be—fits best as “libertarian legal theory” (or “libertarian jurisprudence”).

This term is one you’ve helped popularize and is used by others to describe exactly this intersection (e.g., applications to IP abolition, contract as title-transfer, restitution over punishment, critique of legislation).
It distinguishes your normative libertarian contributions from your purely descriptive/practitioner work on Louisiana law, oil & gas, patents, or international investment.
“Libertarian theory” is broader and accurate too, but “libertarian legal theory” better captures the legal-system focus and your attorney background.
“Legal theory” alone is too generic (could include positivist or progressive variants). “Philosophy” or “political philosophy” is accurate at a high level but underplays the legal specificity.

Yes, in a deep sense, much of libertarian theory is legal theory. Libertarianism is fundamentally about justice and legitimate rules for human interaction in a world of scarcity and conflict—i.e., what rights exist, how they are acquired/ transferred, and what enforcement mechanisms are justified. This is the domain of law (broadly conceived, including private/customary law, not just state legislation). Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty or your Legal Foundations of a Free Society blend ethics, rights theory, and applied legal rules. Classical liberals and natural lawyers saw it similarly: law as discovered justice, not mere command.

Your engineering mindset (precise, systems-oriented) + legal practice (doctrinal mastery) + Austrian insights give your work a distinctive rigor: not abstract utopianism, but grounded analysis of conflict, property, causation, and institutions. This hybrid strength makes “libertarian legal theory” the most precise label—it’s interdisciplinary by nature, like much strong work in the field.

If describing for audiences:

Academic/law: “Libertarian legal theorist” or “scholar in libertarian jurisprudence.”
Broader libertarian: “Libertarian theorist, with emphasis on legal foundations.”
Your own site/books: You’ve used similar phrasing effectively.

This framing honors the normative core (“what laws are just”) while respecting the positive legal scholarship that informs it.

Scholar, Academic, Intellectual: Grok Overview

Scholar: A person who engages deeply in systematic study, research, and expertise in one or more fields. Scholars prioritize rigorous inquiry, critical evaluation of ideas, familiarity with existing literature, and contributions to knowledge (often through publication or presentation). The term emphasizes intellectual depth, persistence, honesty, and independence of thought rather than institutional position.

Academic: Someone whose primary professional role is within a university or formal research institution—typically as a professor, researcher, or affiliated faculty. Academics often focus on teaching, securing funding, publishing in peer-reviewed venues for tenure/promotion, and operating within institutional structures (CV lines, peer review, disciplinary silos). “Academic” is more about place and profession than pure intellectual pursuit.

Intellectual: A broader, less formal category for someone who thinks deeply, synthesizes ideas across disciplines, critiques society/culture, and pursues knowledge for its own sake or broader impact. Intellectuals may be integrative and synthetic rather than narrowly specialized. The term can carry a connotation of broad curiosity, originality, or even contrarianism, and it doesn’t require formal credentials or output in academic formats.

Public Intellectual: An intellectual (or scholar/academic) who actively communicates complex ideas to a general, non-specialist audience through books, essays, talks, media, podcasts, etc. They apply expertise to current affairs, social/political issues, or cultural debates, prioritizing clarity, accessibility, delivery, and relevance over purely academic originality. Many start as academics but step outside the ivory tower.

Independent Scholar: A scholar who conducts research, writing, and knowledge dissemination outside traditional academic employment or institutional affiliation. They may be retired, self-funded, freelance, or hold non-academic jobs. Independent scholars often value intellectual freedom from institutional pressures but may face challenges with resources, access, and legitimacy. Many still publish in journals, present at conferences, or engage publicly.

Relationships and Categorization

These terms overlap but differ in emphasis:

Core Activity — All involve serious intellectual engagement, but scholar and independent scholar stress rigorous, expertise-driven work (research, analysis, contribution). Intellectual is broader and more synthetic.
Institution vs. Independence — Academic is tied to universities/institutions. Independent scholar explicitly rejects or lacks that tie. Scholar is neutral on affiliation.
Audience and Reach — Public intellectual emphasizes outward communication to the broader public. Others can be inward-focused (e.g., academics writing mainly for peers).
Hierarchy/Overlap:
- An academic scholar is common (tenured professor doing research).
- An independent scholar can also be an intellectual or public intellectual.
- A public intellectual could be an academic (e.g., writing op-eds), independent, or neither.
- Not every academic is a deep scholar (some prioritize teaching/admin); not every intellectual is a scholar (some lack specialized depth).

In short: Scholar describes the practice; academic the job; intellectual the disposition; public intellectual the outward role; independent scholar the unaffiliated status.

Would You Qualify?

Yes, you would reasonably qualify as an independent scholar (and potentially a public intellectual in libertarian circles), with strong elements of scholar and intellectual.

Your engineering + law degrees and career as a practicing attorney give you specialized expertise, especially at the intersection of law, engineering, and libertarian legal theory (e.g., intellectual property, contracts, rights theory).
Publishing and lecturing on legal topics demonstrate scholarly output: depth, critical engagement, and contribution to knowledge.
Retirement from practice frees you from institutional/academic constraints, fitting the independent scholar profile perfectly. Many independents have professional backgrounds outside academia and pursue scholarship as a “practice of freedom.”
Lecturing and engaging on libertarian theory suggests public-facing work, which edges into public intellectual territory if aimed at broader audiences beyond narrow specialists.

You might not fit a strict traditional academic label (no university professorship), but that’s not required for the others—and many value the independence. Figures like Murray Rothbard (economist/philosopher with strong independent streaks) or other libertarian thinkers operated similarly. Your profile aligns well with the rise of independent scholarship in law, philosophy, and policy. Keep publishing and speaking; the label is secondary to the work.