Provide a summary (up to 2 pages) of Epstein’s argument for the state provided in his book, namely, his argument that state takings of property–in eminent domain and also in the form of taxes–is justified because of the existence of public good and market failure caused by the phenomenon of holdouts and freeriders, and thus certain takings such as eminent domain and taxes, are justified because they address these market failures and thus “grow the size of the pie” thus leading to a surplus from which particular victims of eminent domain can be compensated, and other takings victims such as taxpayers are compensated by in-kind restitution since the regulations or taxes address market failures and thus make society better off in general, in other words taxpayers and those burdened by regulation are compensated by the in-kind restitution of more overall wealth that results from the “taking.” And thus, that only state laws — mostly those of the minimal state or night-watchman state–are justified and most laws and regulations and taxes engaged in by the US federal government are illegitimate, because they do not actually fix a real market failure and grow the pie so that the takings can be compensated, at least by in-kind compensation, but instead destroy wealth and make us all worse off, and at the same time redistributes wealth from the shrinking economy from A to B.
Also consider Richard Epstein’s Takings Political Theory versus Epstein’s Intellectual Property Views and explain Kinsella’s critique of Epstein’s argument from an anarchist libertarian point of view and also Kinsella’s critique of Epstein’s pro-IP views and arguments which do not even pass the test of his own takings-based theory of the minimal state.
Interesting discussion from Isaac Arthur. To his credit, he doesn’t totally mangle the issues he has only a bit of familiarity with, namely money and property rights. [continue reading…]
Article based on this speech, prepared by Grok (not edited or reviewed by me):
Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Libertarian Solution
Only libertarians would rise early on a Sunday to debate interest rates in a hypothetical world before tackling a topic as divisive as abortion. Unlike issues like anarchy or intellectual property—where we often find consensus—abortion remains a stubborn puzzle, resisting the clarity we bring to war, taxation, or the state’s illegitimacy. As a libertarian, parent, and former Catholic altar boy, my journey on this issue has been personal: from a Randian pro-choice stance dismissing the fetus as a “clump of cells” to a nuanced sympathy for pro-life arguments, and now to a radically decentralist approach. Delivered at the 2024 Property and Freedom Society Annual Meeting in Bodrum, Turkey, this talk proposes that abortion decisions belong solely to the family, particularly the mother, until birth, free from external legal interference. Drawing on Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s insights, Loren Lomasky’s philosophy, and libertarian principles, I argue this solution respects the fetus’s unique status, avoids state overreach, and aligns with our decentralized ethos. And, Guido, forgive me for diving into this one—I was raised Catholic, after all, with twelve years in Catholic schools shaping my conscience. [continue reading…]
I asked Grok to write this draft article for me, using this prompt:
Write a draft article as if by Stephan Kinsella (me) systematically laying out my perspective on the libertarian aspects of and case for gay marriage. Consult the attached documents [Legal Foundations of a Free Society: Core Chapters—Theory; “The Problem with Intellectual Property,” as it contains an overview of libertarian principles] and the following links. Make it as long as necessary, and include in the article any relevant links and references, as hyperlinks or footnotes. Title the article “Kinsella on Libertarianism and Gay Marriage”. [continue reading…]
But in the meantime, the state ought to set rules for the use of state owned resources to provide as much in-kind restitution to the citizen-taxpayers as possible. Of course this takes practical considerations into account just as juries have to assign monetary awards to victims of torts in lawsuits even though true value is subjective and true restitution is impossible. As I wrote years ago, [continue reading…]
A few years back I appeared on a podcast, Venture Stories Podcast by Village Global, alongside fellow guest Noah Smith. 1 Amusingly, one reason I was invited on the podcast was that they confused me with the Irish economic journalist Stephen Kinsella. 2 (Also somewhat amusing was they cut my derisive reference to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as “Occasional Cortex.”)
I was tagged in a recent Facebook Post by Reformed Christian and Libertarian Gregory Baus about his recent video arguing that non-Christian libertarians should become Christians (and in a sense, already are “religious”). His site contains various libertarian resources. 1
My view is that rights are metanorms, not morals themselves. I used to think rights are a subset of morals. Now I think that the sets are intersecting, that most rights violations are immoral but not necessarily so as the purpose of rights is to tell us which laws are justified not how to act on a day to day basis. There might be situations where it is moral to violate rights (breaking into a cabin in the woods to save your baby) and where is is immoral to stand on one’s rights (being needlessly cruel to your grandma doens’t violate rights but is immoral). [continue reading…]
I just interviewed Jack Spirko for the Tom Woods Show about his new book Laws of Life: Ditch the System, Design Your Life. The interview will be released next Thursday.
One thing that came up was Jack’s insistence that we focus most of our energy and attention on things that are within our control. (His view is a bit more nuanced than that, but this is a mere email, dear reader.)
I don’t like that the U.S. government spends as much as it does. But there is nothing I can do about that.
I can make a long list of things I disapprove of that I have no way of changing.
But there are plenty of things I can do, in the here and now, to create a more secure and fulfilling life for my family and me.”
The following is adapted from a note I wrote to Tom in reply. [continue reading…]
I’ve argued that Hoppe has a point that in today’s democratic system, immigration, whatever the state policy is, some rights are violated: either those of the would-be host/employer (forced exclusion) or those of citizens (forced integration). [continue reading…]
One of my friends on the Left Coast has had his cybertruck defaced twice now by the commies. I mused that it would be funny to rig it up to detect approaching commies by smelling their patchouli and shocking them, but that lawyers might warn that might be risky, and told Grok to write me some lyrics for a song. I then fed them into Suno and told it to make a country song. It’s not bad…. [continue reading…]
Recent Comments