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 asked one Juani (@witheredsummer), an Argentinian Voluntarist, on Twitter and then later via email, to review his draft article “Ideas Are Free: A Case Against Intellectual Property” (text below) (I note that perhaps ironically, this title is almost identical to one of my own previous publications/speeches, Ideas are Free: The Case Against Intellectual Property: or, How Libertarians Went Wrong). I told him it was too long for me to fisk, got Grok to analyze it (see below), and told him to read up on some of my work and review the analysis, so that we could have a more productive conversation about it, and which I could also at least record for my podcast. This is our discussion.
In the end, he didn’t really have many questions and I think he just wanted to vent about how bad IP is and express frustration at out outrageous and harmful it is. And suggest some ways to get through to people and propose reforms. Things I already knew and have been writing about for 30 years. He basically identifies many problems with and absurdities with IP law … which he’s right about and which I’ve mentioned … and comes up with some proposals for IP reform that would reduce its harm. Again, which he’s right about and which I and others have also proposed, but also which are unlikely to be adopted by those infested with the IP mind-virus. Not really sure what the point of this was, but here it is FWIW. [continue reading…]
.@NSKinsella has proposed a number of patent reforms if we decide as a society not to abolish the patent system. This is, in my view, a more plausible way forward (politically) instead of demanding the abolition of patents.https://t.co/q3a0U2HQJ6
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…]
how to see freedom in our lifetimes: well the purpose of freedom is to remove institutionalized human aggression one of obstacle to success in life. Successful action in life is always a challenge because we are not omnipotent or omniscient and the future is uncertain. We will…
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…]
Recent Comments