Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 59:06 — 108.2MB)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 243.
From my recent appearance on the Libertarian Christians podcast, discussing (what else) IP, with host Norman Horn from May 22, 2018.
See also KOL388 | Cantus Firmus with Cody Cook: Against Intellectual Property, and “Libertarians and the Catholic Church on Intellectual Property Laws” (2012) and links therein.
Youtube:
Stephan Kinsella is a libertarian writer and patent attorney in Houston, Texas. He has published widely on various areas of libertarian legal theory and on legal topics such as intellectual property law and international law. His publications include Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Papinian Press, 2023), Against Intellectual Property (Mises Institute, 2008), and International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide (Oxford, 2020).
The Libertarian Standard (TLS)
© 2012-2024 StephanKinsella.com 
To the extent possible under law, Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to material on this Site, unless indicated otherwise. In the event the CC0 license is unenforceable a 
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License is hereby granted.
About your comments on positive and negative rights at around 14:30. You said just before that all rights are property rights, rights to control scarce goods. Wouldn’t it then make sense that both positive rights or negative rights can arise and can be legitimate (from the point of view of libertarianism) if they arise contractually or as a consequence of a prior wrongdoing which entitles some person to restitution from the wrongdoer?
I don’t even know if the concept of negative and positive rights is actually of much value. I think it has come about from muddled thinking.
Copious amounts of water having flowed under the bridge…
I have perhaps moved closer to your position that the Constitution is of dubious merit. I can now appreciate that “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men” is a non-sequitur.
It is more a case of “To institute governments among Men, we promise to secure their rights” and as soon as that as been achieved “To simultaneously moderate technology and culture, whilst extracting useful work from the inhabitants, we annul some of their liberties that we may sell back to them”.
In other words, patent and copyright are decrees of the highest order and, being recognised at the outset as a priori illiberal, are unassailable by mere libertarian argument. Their abolition would be entertained only upon the arrival of a mechanism that offered superior technological/cultural control and labour extraction.
But then, if Madison could now enlighten you, the timescales pertaining to these matters render all argument moot.