KOL011 | “Intellectual ‘Property'” (The Lew Rockwell Show, Sept. 24, 2008)

by Stephan Kinsella on February 5, 2013

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 011.

This is an interview I did with Lew Rockwell, from 2008: “Intellectual ‘Property,’”, The Lew Rockwell Show (Sept. 24, 2008; archive) (re-podcast as Stephan Kinsella: The Intellectual Property Racket (Aug. 29, 2009).

Transcript and Grok analysis below.

For more from Lew on IP:

“Intellectual Property and Libertarianism,” speech presented at Mises University 2009 (July 30, 2009) [KOL013], re-podcast at The Lew Rockwell Show, #131, as The Intellectual Property Racket (Aug. 19, 2009) (archive; mp3, with Lew’s introduction).
Calling Kinsella and Tucker By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. February 15, 2009
Intellectual “Property”: July 24, 2003: “Two classic articles: Gene Callahan’s “Rethinking Patent Law” and Stephan Kinsella’s “Against Intellectual Property (PDF).”

Shownotes (Grok)

Episode Description

In this classic 2008 interview, Lew Rockwell speaks with patent attorney and libertarian theorist Stephan Kinsella about the fundamental problems with intellectual property (IP) law.

Kinsella explains why patents and copyrights are not true property rights but instead government-granted monopolies that infringe on legitimate physical property rights. He discusses the moral case against IP, its conflict with libertarian principles, Murray Rothbard’s views on contracts as a potential alternative, the aggressive tactics of the RIAA and MPAA, and where Ayn Rand went wrong in defending the U.S. constitutional approach to IP.

Recorded shortly after Hurricane Ike, the conversation also touches on government responses to natural disasters before diving deep into the IP debate.

This episode remains highly relevant in the age of digital copying, encryption, and ongoing battles over information control.

***

Here’s a revised, more detailed set of shownotes for your podcast episode. I’ve expanded the summary with clearer descriptions of the key arguments, added topical headers for better navigation, and kept it engaging and professional.

Episode Title

Intellectual Property: Why Patents and Copyrights Are Not Legitimate Property Rights

Stephan Kinsella on The Lew Rockwell Show (September 24, 2008)

Episode Description

In this insightful 2008 interview, Lew Rockwell sits down with patent attorney and libertarian theorist Stephan Kinsella to examine the philosophical and moral problems with intellectual property (IP) law. Kinsella argues that patents and copyrights are not true property rights but government-created monopolies that necessarily infringe on tangible, physical property rights.

The discussion covers how enforcing IP requires an intrusive state bureaucracy, functions as a form of wealth redistribution, and conflicts with core libertarian principles of property and non-aggression. Recorded shortly after Hurricane Ike, the conversation opens with a critique of government disaster response before diving into the IP debate — including Rothbard’s views, the futility of stopping digital copying, aggressive tactics by the RIAA, and Ayn Rand’s errors on the topic.

This concise but powerful interview remains highly relevant in today’s world of digital content, AI-generated works, and ongoing debates over information “ownership.”

Runtime: Approximately 15 minutes

Detailed Summary of Arguments

Opening: Government Response to Hurricane Ike

The episode begins with Kinsella, then in Baton Rouge awaiting power restoration after the hurricane, critiquing government-imposed curfews and attempts to blame private utility companies for delays in restoring electricity. He highlights how officials deflect responsibility onto the private sector while expanding their own control.

The Core Case Against Intellectual Property

Kinsella explains that most libertarians and economists initially assume IP is a legitimate form of property. However, he argues this view is mistaken. IP laws create “positive rights” that dilute and intrude upon existing tangible property rights — much like welfare rights require taxation and invasion of private bank accounts. Enforcing patents and copyrights demands a large state bureaucracy and effectively redistributes wealth from ordinary property owners to a privileged class of “innovators” who register government documents. The moral problem is central: IP cannot exist without state coercion against peaceful use of one’s own physical property.

Rothbard on Patents, Copyrights, and Contractual Alternatives

Lew Rockwell asks about Murray Rothbard’s position. Kinsella notes that Rothbard correctly viewed patents as illegitimate government monopolies but was more open to copyrights. Rothbard suggested that contractual notices (e.g., stamping “copyright” on a mousetrap) could legitimately restrict buyers. Kinsella agrees this works for direct contracting parties but criticizes extending it to third parties, as that implicitly treats knowledge or patterns as ownable “property.” He believes more work can be done on voluntary contractual mechanisms in a free market, though government antitrust laws currently block many potential private solutions to free-rider problems.

Widespread Libertarian and Public Opposition to IP Enforcement

Kinsella observes strong opposition to IP among younger, tech-savvy, and principled libertarians (especially those influenced by Rothbardian property-rights theory). He compares the RIAA to the IRS — widely despised and seen as illegitimate. Even many in the music and film industries condemn the RIAA’s lawsuits against thousands of customers. The conversation highlights extreme proposals, such as allowing copyright holders to remotely destroy computers via viruses (advocated by Sen. Orrin Hatch), which Kinsella calls obviously criminal behavior the government would otherwise condemn.

The Natural Role of Copying and the Futility of Suppression

Copying is portrayed as a fundamental human activity — essential for learning, transmitting knowledge, and creative progress. Artists and inventors have always built upon existing ideas, plots, and technologies. Kinsella (referencing Cory Doctorow) notes that the internet is the ultimate “copying machine,” and technology will only make copying easier. Attempts to suppress it will require increasingly draconian measures, leading to selective enforcement and eventual failure. Cryptography and encryption will further undermine enforcement efforts.

Where Ayn Rand Went Wrong on IP

Kinsella critiques Ayn Rand’s strong defense of patents and copyrights. He points to her near-religious adherence to the U.S. Constitution and the Founders’ schemes. Specific errors include her mistaken belief in “first-to-file” patent rules (U.S. law at the time was first-to-invent) and her contorted justifications for existing law. The deeper flaw, Kinsella argues, is treating “creation” as an independent source of property rights. Creation adds value to already-owned resources but does not create new ownership claims over patterns or ideas. This notion parallels liberal positive rights and inevitably requires state legislation and bureaucracy — both anti-libertarian.

Key Resources & Links

Stephan Kinsella’s foundational book: Against Intellectual Property (2001/2008) – Free PDF and print editions available from the Mises Institute.
https://mises.org/library/book/against-intellectual-property
Stephan Kinsella’s website (extensive IP section): https://stephankinsella.com
Mises.org archive of Kinsella’s articles
LewRockwell.com archive of Kinsella’s writings
Original interview page: https://stephankinsella.com/as_paf_podcast/kol011-intellectual-property-the-lew-rockwell-show-sept-24-2008/

Guest Bio

Stephan Kinsella is a practicing patent attorney, libertarian writer, and anarcho-capitalist thinker. His work, especially Against Intellectual Property, has revolutionized libertarian thinking on IP by demonstrating that patents and copyrights are incompatible with genuine property rights and require state aggression. He maintains an active archive on legal theory, Austrian economics, and libertarianism at stephankinsella.com.

Production Notes

Interviewer: Lew Rockwell
Original Air Date: September 24, 2008 (The Lew Rockwell Show)
Republished as KOL011 on the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast
Produced by LewRockwell.com

Tags

intellectual property, patents, copyrights, Stephan Kinsella, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, RIAA, property rights, libertarianism, Mises Institute, against intellectual property, free market, government monopoly

Analysis using 5 World class Frameworks

(I have no idea what this is, it was Juan Carpio’s suggestion)

Here’s a fresh, transcript-based analysis of the September 24, 2008 Lew Rockwell Show interview (#32) with Stephan Kinsella on intellectual property (IP). The conversation is concise (~15 minutes) but dense, covering the core anti-IP case from a principled libertarian/property-rights perspective.

Key points from the transcript:

IP (patents, copyrights) is not legitimate property. Enforcing it requires state intrusion into existing tangible (real/physical) property rights.
Both leftists and many right-libertarians err by treating IP as “property”; the former oppose it for anti-commercial reasons, the latter endorse it mistakenly.
Enforcement creates a bureaucratic system that redistributes wealth from ordinary property owners to state-favored “innovators” via registration.
Critique of Murray Rothbard: Rothbard correctly saw patents as monopoly grants and sketched a contractual approach (e.g., mousetrap example with notice to buyers), but erred by extending it to third parties, which implicitly treats knowledge/ideas as ownable property.
Contractual and market mechanisms could address many IP concerns in a free society, but government (e.g., antitrust laws) currently blocks many such adaptations.
Cultural shift: Young/tech-savvy people and principled libertarians widely reject IP enforcement (RIAA/MPAA tactics seen as hated, like the IRS). Copying is natural—how humans learn, transmit culture, and create by building on existing ideas/plots.
Enforcement will require ever-more draconian measures (e.g., proposals to remotely destroy computers), which are impractical and unjust, especially as technology (internet, encryption) makes copying easier and suppression harder.
Ayn Rand’s errors: Overly reverent view of the U.S. Constitution led her to defend its IP scheme; confused “creation” as an independent source of property rights (mixing it with homesteading/labor); mistakenly defended “first-to-file” (when U.S. law was first-to-invent at the time).

Kinsella emphasizes the moral case: IP requires a state, legislation, and bureaucracy—unlibertarian by nature. It dilutes real rights, like welfare rights do.

Now, re-analyzing this specific discussion using the same five world-class frameworks (applied directly to the transcript’s arguments and examples):

1. SWOT Analysis (Strategic planning framework)

Strengths: Tight logical consistency with homesteading/first-occupier property theory (scarce/tangible resources only); highlights real-world enforcement absurdities (RIAA suing customers, computer-destruction proposals); distinguishes contractual notice (Rothbardian) from coercive third-party control; resonates with observed cultural rejection among the young/tech-savvy.
Weaknesses: Relies on abstract property theory that challenges deeply ingrained “creation = ownership” intuitions (even among libertarians/Objectivists); short discussion leaves limited space for detailing free-market contractual alternatives.
Opportunities: Leverages growing public backlash against RIAA/MPAA and technological impossibility of perfect enforcement (internet as “greatest copying machine”); opens door for innovative private solutions once antitrust barriers are removed.
Threats: Entrenched interests (content industries, patent bar) and lingering Randian/Rothbardian partial defenses could slow adoption; transitional uncertainty in creative industries.

The transcript’s position is internally strong and opportunistic in a digital era, with the moral/property-rights framing as its biggest asset.

2. PESTLE Analysis (Macro-environmental framework)

Political: IP is a government-created privilege (legislatures, federal bureaucracy like USPTO, enforcement via state power). Kinsella stresses it socializes/redistributes via state favoritism.
Economic: Creates artificial monopolies and rent-seeking; conflicts with free-market adaptation (cartels for free-rider issues blocked by antitrust); copying has near-zero marginal cost online.
Social: Copying is “natural” and essential to learning/culture/creation; broad public (especially under-30s) views RIAA-style tactics as illegitimate and customer-hostile.
Technological: Internet accelerates copying; cryptography/encryption will make suppression selective and increasingly futile, leading to selective enforcement or collapse.
Legal: Directly invades tangible property rights (to enforce IP, the state must control others’ physical resources—computers, factories, etc.).
Environmental: Not addressed, but minor relevance to diffusion of green tech innovations.

PESTLE strongly favors the anti-IP view: social/technological forces align against it, while political/legal structures prop it up.

3. Porter’s Five Forces (Industry competitive structure)

Applied to innovation/creative industries under IP vs. a no-IP contractual regime (as hinted in the transcript):

Threat of New Entrants: Very high without IP—anyone can observe, copy, and improve (mousetrap example; building on existing plots/ideas).
Bargaining Power of Suppliers: Low (ideas/knowledge are non-scarce and abundant).
Bargaining Power of Buyers: High—consumers gain from easy access and lower prices; follow-on creators benefit from rapid iteration.
Threat of Substitutes: High—remixing, open adaptation, and first-mover advantages replace monopoly rents.
Rivalry Among Competitors: More intense and dynamic, shifting to speed, quality, branding, service, and reputation rather than legal barriers.

The transcript implies IP artificially dampens these forces; removing it would intensify healthy, market-driven competition and innovation through copying/building.

4. Stakeholder Theory (Freeman’s multi-stakeholder approach)

Primary Winners: Tangible property owners (protected from intrusion); consumers (cheaper/faster access); follow-on innovators and society (cumulative progress via natural copying); young/tech users (who already reject RIAA tactics); liberty broadly (less surveillance/draconian enforcement).
Short-term Losers: Incumbent IP-dependent industries (music, film) and their lobbying arms; the state (loses a tool of control and bureaucracy).
Mixed/Neutral: Original creators—first-mover advantages, reputation, branding, and voluntary contracts (with notice to buyers) still provide rewards without state monopoly; Rothbard-style limited contracts could help.
Government/Bureaucracy: Major loser—IP requires legislatures, agencies, and courts to administer and enforce.

Kinsella prioritizes the diffuse stakeholders (property owners, future creators, public) over concentrated rent-seekers, aligning with long-term value creation over narrow privileges.

5. Cost-Benefit Analysis (Economic policy evaluation)

Costs of IP (emphasized in transcript): Intrusive state bureaucracy and enforcement; dilution/invasion of real property rights; wealth redistribution to state-favored registrants; criminalization of peaceful copying (natural learning process); impractical and unjust tactics (suing thousands, remote computer destruction proposals); retards cumulative creation by restricting building on ideas.
Claimed Benefits: Incentives for creation/innovation. Counter (implicit/explicit): Overstated—copying and adaptation drive progress; contractual mechanisms and market reputation/first-mover gains suffice; empirical resistance (public hatred of RIAA) and technological trends show net harm.
Net: Strongly negative. Moral costs (state coercion, rights violation) plus practical ones (enforcement arms race, future draconian measures) outweigh any marginal incentive gains. A free market would adapt better without antitrust distortions.

Synthesis Across Frameworks

The transcript presents a concise, principled demolition of IP as unlibertarian and anti-property. All five frameworks converge: the position is morally coherent (scarce resources only), strategically timely (tech/cultural shifts), economically efficient (removes artificial barriers), stakeholder-balanced (broad vs. narrow interests), and net welfare-positive (less coercion, more diffusion of knowledge). Kinsella respectfully critiques even allies like Rothbard (third-party extension) and Rand (creation myth + constitutional reverence), reinforcing the argument’s rigor.

The 2008 discussion remains highly relevant—many predicted enforcement battles and cultural rejection have intensified since. In a truly free society, as Kinsella outlines, ideas and patterns would be free to copy and build upon; only tangible embodiments and voluntary contracts would be protected.

If you’d like deeper dives into any framework, expansions on specific examples (e.g., the mousetrap or Orrin Hatch proposal), or analysis through additional lenses, just say the word!

Transcript

Corrected Transcript: Lew Rockwell Interview with Stephan Kinsella on Intellectual Property

Podcast: The Lew Rockwell Show

Date: September 24, 2008

Introduction and Hurricane Discussion

[0:04]

Lew Rockwell: This is the Lew Rockwell Show. It’s great to have Stephan Kinsella with us today. Stephan is an attorney in Houston, Texas, specializing in patents and trademarks. He’s a writer—if you take a look at his archive at LewRockwell.com, also his archive on Mises.org. He’s the author of many legal books published in this country and abroad in his area of specialization. Today I want to talk to him about intellectual property, about the whole concept of government patents and government copyrights. He’s really enacted a revolution in this area among libertarians. But Stephan, before we get into that, you’re in Houston. You’ve just had that horrific hurricane. Talk to us a little bit about how comforted you are by Mayor White of Houston and other government officials taking care of you.

Stephan Kinsella: Well, let me just say I’m here in Baton Rouge waiting for power to be restored. Nice to be with you, by the way. But one of the things I’ve heard is the curfews that the government is imposing to make their job easier—of course, to just automatically suspect anyone who’s roaming around of being a criminal. It’s amazing that people think the government’s doing a great job there. I saw Mayor White on television reminding everybody that the electric lines were all owned by a private company and therefore, of course, the government—which was entirely in control and up to snuff in every other area—couldn’t restore people’s electricity because that was some of those awful private firms.

Lew Rockwell: Right. Yeah, they try to blame any failure they can on the private sector even if their fingers are all over it.

The Nature of Intellectual Property and Its Conflict with Real Property Rights

[1:37]

Lew Rockwell: Stephan, talk to me a little bit about intellectual property. I think you’ve pointed out that not only is it not property, but the concept is used by the government and by private interests in order to infringe real property rights.

Stephan Kinsella: Yeah, this is to me the most striking thing about it. A lot of libertarians and economists sort of come to the table presuming that IP is a legitimate type of property right. It’s one of these strange things where leftists oppose it because they assume it’s property, and conservatives and libertarians endorse it because they also believe it’s property. In a sense, both are wrong. The leftists seem to sort of sense this—I’m not sure if they sense it really because of any perspicacity or because of their general hostility towards industrialism and commerce, and their assumption that this is part of it—but they sense something is wrong with the oppressive way these laws are used.

But when you step back and think about it—as I did a long time ago when I started practicing IP law around ’92–’94—I assumed that it was legitimate, having read Ayn Rand and other free market thinkers who sort of took it for granted. Their justifications really didn’t make a lot of sense. And the more you think about it, you realize that to enforce these property rights—these so-called property rights—you have to basically set up an intrusion, a system that intrudes into legitimate property rights that already exist. It’s almost like the libertarians fall prey to the notion that liberals fall prey to, where they believe you can just create more and more positive rights with no penalty, without realizing that these rights dilute real rights.

Like welfare rights are not free—they come at the cost of property rights because they require us to invade people’s bank accounts and check paychecks and pay for these welfare rights. And it’s the same thing with intellectual property rights. The more you proliferate these types of rights, they have to be enforced against physical property that already exists. So the primary case against intellectual property, in my opinion, is moral. It requires an intrusive state bureaucracy. It’s basically a socialized redistribution of wealth from existing property owners to another class of people favored by the state—a class of innovators, or basically people that register the appropriate documents with the federal government.

Rothbard on Patents and Copyrights

[4:15]

Lew Rockwell: Stephan, I know that Murray Rothbard thought that patents were illegitimate grants of government monopoly, but what about copyrights? You’ve shown that copyrights are as much an illegitimate grant of government monopoly as patents are.

Stephan Kinsella: I believe Rothbard’s intuitions were heading in the right direction. What he was trying to do was say that you could use some kind of private contractual regime that would be legitimate to create some of the benefits that people point to in a copyright or patent system. In the example he gave, he gave an example of a mousetrap. Now, under typical IP law, that’s an invention which is covered by patent. Murray called it a case of copyright because he was thinking the pattern of the mousetrap could be copied by the buyer of the mousetrap. And basically his idea was that if you stamp it “copyright” and you’re putting the buyer on notice that he can’t use it in certain ways—and I think actually that’s correct as far as it goes. But I think he did misstep a little bit where he extended that to cover the case of third parties, because to do that requires the assumption that knowledge is also property. Because the third party wouldn’t need permission of the second party—the buyer or the seller—unless knowledge was property, if he’s merely using knowledge that he gained from, say, observing the purchaser’s mousetrap.

So I think that is the mistake he made there. He was basically trying to construct a contractual system, and I do believe that more work can be done in that area and more contractual mechanisms could be come up with that would solve many of the problems that IP advocates point to. The part of the problem, of course, is that the government outlaws a lot of the mechanisms that the free market would adapt or adopt to address these problems—with antitrust law, for example. You know, if many companies got together to form a cartel to have some kind of protection or some way to address a free rider problem, for example, in a given industry, it would be a cartel and illegal under the antitrust laws. So we can’t see right now exactly what contractual mechanisms people would come up with, but certainly I think contractual regimes would be perfectly legitimate.

Libertarian Opposition to IP Enforcement (RIAA, MPAA, etc.)

[6:49]

Lew Rockwell: And of course your monograph on intellectual property is available on Mises.org at the Mises.org store. But it seems like this is one instance in which the libertarian— the Kinsella libertarians—have really got the people with them. I mean, is there anybody—is there any young person, is there anybody under 30 in the United States who takes the RIAA side against copiers of music? Or the Motion Picture Association’s similar activities? I mean, these are hated organizations. They of course work in cahoots with the government to try to suppress copying of music and copying of movies.

Stephan Kinsella: I agree. It’s actually striking to me how uniform the libertarian sentiment is about IP, at least among those that are younger or that are tech-savvy or that have any familiarity with Austrian economics or Rothbardian-type libertarianism—which is principled, property-rights-based libertarianism. And it appears to me that the RIAA is viewed almost like the IRS. You know, it’s like no one knows anyone who works for the RIAA or the IRS. It’s maybe some obscure third cousin or something, and they don’t talk about it at cocktail parties too much. It’s universally seen as being illegitimate. And not only that—impractical. The RIAA is widely condemned by almost everyone in the industry, even people that don’t have a strident or principled view on IP. They think it’s crazy what these guys are doing. They’re destroying their own customers. They sued 20,000 people. It looks like the flailings of a dying beast.

I remember there was one point in which Congress was preparing to adopt—and maybe they did adopt—a plan the Republicans were pushing to allow the movie industry, the record industry, to actually destroy people’s computers—to be able to reach into them with, in effect, their own viruses. If you had music or movies that they claimed you shouldn’t have on your computer, that they would be able to, for example, erase your hard disk.

Lew Rockwell: Yeah, I think that was—I think Orrin Hatch actually advocated that.

Stephan Kinsella: Yeah, the evil Orrin Hatch.

Lew Rockwell: A good Republican supporter of property rights, correct?

Stephan Kinsella: So here’s what, of course, is obviously a criminal act—the sort of act that the government is otherwise hysterical about: people who are hackers and spammers and that sort of thing. And yet, of course, the government not at all hesitating to use these tactics itself in defense of the interests that it approves.

Lew Rockwell: Yes, I agree. I mean, I think this is what you get when the government tries to outlaw essentially peaceful, non-criminal activity. You know, if there’s a demand for something, but then there is clearly a demand for the ability to copy—I mean, copying is a natural thing to do. This is how we learn, right? This is how we transmit information. The entire creative process, even in technology or in art, relies upon copying. That’s what it’s about—adapting and building on plots from well-known novels and plays and ideas that have been circulating in society for dozens or hundreds or thousands of years and building upon them. So copying is natural. And as I think Cory Doctorow points out in a recent really insightful piece, copying is not going to get any harder—copying is going to get even easier. I mean, the internet is the world’s greatest copying machine. And so the attempt to suppress copying is going to require draconian measures that are going to suppress people’s liberty, and are ultimately going to be impossible. I think it will be impossible, especially as cryptography and encryption techniques become more readily available and widely used. I think that is going to result, of course, in selective enforcement—imposing draconian penalties on a few select unlucky people—until hopefully the spectre of this will be so dramatically seen to be unjust that it will just wither away or not be enforced too much.

Ayn Rand’s Mistakes on Intellectual Property

[11:11]

Lew Rockwell: Stephan, just one last point. Where did Rand go wrong? I mean, I can remember her arguing that—if I can paraphrase—in a sense, you know, that you were some sort of mystic of the muscle if you didn’t believe that the U.S. Constitution’s view of patents and copyrights was exactly right—that you were a communist. But it seems to me she had very little argument for this.

Stephan Kinsella: Well, yeah, I think there were a couple of missteps that she made. One was, as you note, her sort of religious adherence to the American scheme of government, which was almost perfect in her mind. And only so she sort of took for granted that whatever the founders had set up was correct—except, you know, maybe for slavery and a few other matters.

And in fact, one striking example of that is Ayn Rand tried, in her weak attempt to defend intellectual property, to defend the practice which is called “first to file”—which means the first inventor to file a patent application wins and gets the patent. So she had this contorted argument for why this makes sense because she mistakenly believed that was the American law. Of course it’s not the American law. The American law is the first person to invent would win in the case of a contest—unlike the rest of the world. So that’s just an example of her sort of reverse-engineering, I believe, just trying to justify whatever the Constitution said.

But I believe the central mistake is the sort of confused notion that creation is an independent source of property right—probably stemming from the mixture of the idea of creation with economic prosperity and productivity and homesteading and all these notions. Unless you carefully sort them out, you might be mistaken for thinking that creating things of value is one source of property rights. But if you think about it carefully, you can only create value with property that you own. And if you own the property, you already have the property right. So the creation of value is just a way of transforming goods that are already owned.

So I believe that identifying creation as an independent source of property rights is similar to the idea—similar to what liberals do when they try to create positive welfare rights. It’s just an additional right they believe, but it has to undercut the already existing rights. And the same with basically attaching property rights to creation as a right. I mean, basically, if you understand how the system works, it cannot work without a state—a legislature to create these schemes and a huge mess of government bureaucracy to administer it. It cannot. So anyone advocating patents and copyrights is, in effect, advocating bureaucracy, the state, and legislation—which are clearly unlibertarian, in my opinion.

Closing

[14:04]

Lew Rockwell: Stephan Kinsella, thanks so much for being with us. I want to urge everyone to take a look at his archive at LewRockwell.com, take a look at his archive at Mises.org, read his book on intellectual property that’s for sale at the Mises store—or you can read it for free online in a PDF. Indeed, you can just put “Kinsella” and “intellectual property” into Google and you’ll find out all kinds of great things. And let me also mention StephanKinsella.com, his own site. Stephan is a pioneering libertarian theorist and doing great work. And Stephan, thanks so much.

Stephan Kinsella: Thank you, Lew.

Lew Rockwell: You’ve been listening to The Lew Rockwell Show, produced by LewRockwell.com, the best-read libertarian website in the world. If you’d like to advertise on this podcast or on the website, email advertise at LewRockwell.com. And thanks for listening.