Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 436.
I was interviewed today by Kelly Patrick of the Kelly Patrick Show ep. 777. I fielded questions from his The Kelly Patrick Show Political Chat facebook group, mostly questions from nonlibertarians or people critical of libertarianism. We discussed the prospects of liberty, activism, why people are not persuaded by libertarian arguments, the prospects of the Libertarian Party, intellectual property, anarchism, and so on.
Transcript and shownotes below.
Shownotes—Brief (Grok)
In this engaging political episode of The Kelly Patrick Show, host Kelly Patrick sits down with prominent libertarian thinker and retired patent attorney Stephan Kinsella to field tough questions submitted by non-libertarians from his Facebook group.
The conversation opens with a deep dive into why libertarianism struggles to gain widespread appeal despite being well-known—Stephan argues it’s not a lack of exposure but economic and political illiteracy, inconsistent application of shared norms like self-ownership and non-aggression, and people’s willingness to grant the state exceptions they’d never tolerate from private actors.
He defends libertarianism as aspirational yet practical, rooted in Western civilization’s core principles of property rights and peaceful cooperation, while addressing criticisms that it “offers nothing” by explaining how anarcho-capitalist ideas expect natural private institutions (education, security, roads) to re-emerge without state distortion rather than leaving a vacuum.
The discussion covers Stephan’s 2024 voting intentions (likely Trump over Harris to limit Democrat damage, possibly Chase Oliver), his signature crusade against intellectual property laws (patents and copyright as violations of tangible property rights that stifle innovation and free speech), the hopeless national prospects of the Libertarian Party in a winner-take-all system, a non-interventionist foreign policy vision (slash military budget, close foreign bases, avoid entanglements), skepticism toward modern monetary theory and fiat currency in favor of hard money like Bitcoin, and a candid critique of the U.S. Constitution as a document designed to empower rather than restrain government.
Packed with principled reasoning, inside libertarian jokes, and responses to real-world examples, this episode offers a thorough, unfiltered exploration of libertarian ideas from one of its most influential contemporary voices.
Shownotes—Detailed (Grok)
The Kelly Patrick Show – Episode: Stephan Kinsella – Taking Questions from Non-Libertarians
Guest: Stephan Kinsella
Original air date: (based on transcript context, likely mid-2024)
Episode length: ~94 minutes
0:00 – 2:00 | Welcome, Show Format & Sponsor Messages
Kelly Patrick introduces the episode as a political discussion with libertarian thinker Stephan Kinsella. He explains the new format using questions submitted from the Kelly Patrick Show Political Chat Facebook group (74 members at the time). Sponsors are read: Louisville Combat Academy, Heidi Solars-Kutz (therapy), VeerCast Digital Media, and Kelly’s health insurance brokerage.
2:00 – 5:00 | Guest Introduction & Name Pronunciation Clarification
Kelly introduces Stephan as a retired patent attorney and libertarian author. Stephan corrects the pronunciation of his name (“Stephan” with “ph”) and notes frequent confusion with two other Stephen Kinsellas in Europe (one a post-Keynesian economist). Light-hearted exchange about Google mix-ups.
5:00 – 20:00 | Tim Neal’s Critique – Why Don’t People Want Libertarianism?
Kelly reads Tim Neal’s statement: people have heard libertarianism and still reject it because it “takes stuff off the table” without solving core problems or offering inspiring alternatives. Stephan responds at length: libertarianism is aspirational (peace, prosperity, non-aggression as ideals); most people already hold quasi-libertarian norms (self-ownership, opposition to murder/theft/rape) but make inconsistent exceptions for state action. Economic and political illiteracy are major barriers; post-COVID skepticism is a positive sign. Libertarianism refines and consistently applies norms already embedded in Western civilization and common law.
20:00 – 32:00 | Expanding on Libertarian Appeal, Anarchism, and Private Alternatives
Stephan addresses the “libertarianism offers nothing” charge. Most people are implicit statists expecting the state to solve public-goods problems. Anarchists oppose aggression (private and public/institutionalized) without necessarily proposing a detailed replacement system—just as opposing murder doesn’t require a perfect murder-free blueprint. Realistic (“right”) libertarians expect natural private institutions (education, security, roads) to re-emerge when the state recedes, not a vacuum. Distinguishes from “left libertarians” who oppose natural hierarchies. Dependency on state services (schools, welfare, roads) makes people fear abolition because they can’t imagine alternatives.
32:00 – 37:00 | 2024 Election – Will Stephan Vote? Trump vs. Harris vs. Chase Oliver
Kelly asks if Stephan will vote in November 2024. Stephan says probably yes (to placate his wife and reduce Democrat tax risk), but doubts voting matters much. Prefers Trump over Harris as less dangerous, though neither is ideal. Considering Chase Oliver (Libertarian nominee) despite controversy over his past COVID virtue-signaling and milquetoast IP comments. Jokes he’d vote for Oliver if he opposed patents outright.
37:00 – 53:00 | Why Stephan Opposes Patents & Copyright (Intellectual Property Deep Dive)
Core discussion of Stephan’s signature issue. Patents and copyright should be among the top libertarian targets for abolition (alongside taxation, Fed, drug war, etc.). They violate tangible property rights: patents grant monopolies over others’ use of their own factories/materials; copyright prevents use of your own paper/ink/press. Examples: Luke Combs’ “Fast Car” cover royalties (both artist and cover benefit from monopoly system, but it’s still wrong); Bikram Yoga trademark/patent disputes. Every patent/copyright grant is inherently outrageous because free markets require suffering competition. Abolition would increase innovation, artistic freedom, and reduce censorship/distortion. Some state programs (Social Security) might need transition; IP and drug war should end immediately.
53:00 – 1:05:00 | What Would Make the Libertarian Party Nationally Relevant?
Stephan’s pessimistic but realistic take: America’s winner-take-all system locks in the duopoly; third parties face wasted-vote dynamics and no proportional representation. LP is hopeless nationally (<1% hardcore base). Activism won’t convert the masses—liberty emerges organically as technology and wealth make state dependence unnecessary (AI tutors, private security, personal manufacturing → state atrophies like British monarchy). Stephan joined LP briefly to ensure it at least runs genuine libertarians (helped write clearer aggression/property-rights definition in platform). Plans to leave after judicial committee term ends; focus should be local, principled candidates who won’t win but keep ideas alive.
1:05:00 – 1:15:00 | Libertarian Views on U.S. Military & Foreign Policy
Most libertarians favor slashing military budget by 50–70%, closing many foreign bases, bringing troops home, ending entangling alliances, and adopting non-interventionist posture (strong defense, nuclear deterrent, no Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan meddling). Not isolationism—free trade and relations yes, empire no. Technical issues (selling/renting bases) secondary to policy shift. Addresses Tim Cordova’s skepticism of privatized security (Bob Murphy’s insurance/arbitration models): realistic in a stateless society, but current aggressive states create a dilemma—minimal state may be temporarily necessary, but should be kept as small as possible.
1:15:00 – 1:20:00 | Critique of the U.S. Constitution & Founding
Digression: Constitution was designed to create/empower a central government, not protect rights. Limits mostly failed (Bill of Rights interpreted by government courts). Founding included slavery, conscription, property violations, class biases (framers inserted IP clause benefiting themselves). Revolutionary War had widespread civil-liberties abuses. Not a libertarian golden age—democracy and Constitution were regressive steps (per Hoppe).
1:20:00 – 1:32:00 | Randall Sanders’ Question – Fiat Currency, Gold, Bitcoin & MMT
Stephan opposes fiat currency (government-coerced, inflationary). Critiques MMT as pseudoscientific Keynesianism. Money is unique: more units don’t create wealth, only redistribute. Gold was decent (low inflation) but failed due to physical limitations and government interference. Bitcoin (or successor) superior: fixed/decreasing supply, digital, uncensorable, natural store-of-value flight vehicle as fiat inflation worsens. No need for infinite supply—fixed amount sufficient for transactions; scaling isn’t a problem because money isn’t wealth.
1:32:00 – End | Closing & Plugs
Kelly thanks Stephan. Stephan plugs:
- Book: Legal Foundations of a Free Society (free PDF on StephanKinsella.com; EPUB coming; hard copy/Kindle available)
- Website: C4SIF.org (Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom – IP focus)
- Social: @NSKinsella on Twitter/X and Facebook Invites questions via email or tweet. Mutual thanks and sign-off.
Transcript (Whisper/Grok)
Introduction & Show Setup
Kelly Patrick • 00:19
Welcome to the Kelly Patrick Show. Thank you so much for tuning in. In today’s episode I am doing a political show starring Stephan Kinsella, who is a popular libertarian author—really. When I say popular, what I mean is people like me, kind of more right-leaning libertarian types. So not necessarily popular all across the world in every group. But in my world, Stephan Kinsella is a very well-respected libertarian thinker, and I really appreciate him coming on. The format of the show today is relatively new: I have a Facebook group called the Kelly Patrick Show Political Chat, which currently has 74 members, so it’s not huge. But when I’m doing political episodes, especially libertarian ones—because I know the libertarian perspective isn’t always the most common or popular—I make a post in that group and try to get to whoever comments with questions or topic suggestions. So in today’s episode, I got to some questions from Randall Sanders, Tim Neal, Todd Neal, and Timothy Cordova. I really appreciate everyone tuning in. If you’re a fan of the Kelly Patrick Show, please send some referrals to my sponsors. The title sponsor of the show is…
Sponsor Reads
Kelly Patrick • 01:55
Louisville Combat Academy located at 7908 Beulah Church Road, Louisville, Kentucky 40228. They have a great MMA program, offer 10th Planet Nogi Jiu Jitsu, female-friendly classes, and a great kids program—check them out. Kelly is there every Thursday for kickboxing at 6:30 p.m. and on Sundays for sparring at 5 p.m., both classes led by B.J. Ferguson, who in 2023 won the Avery Thing contest for most handsome MMA fighter on the planet. Come out and join Kelly and try a class. Heidi Solars-Kutz is a licensed clinical social worker and licensed clinical alcohol and drug counselor in Kentucky, California, New York, and Arizona; she specializes in treating anxiety, depression, trauma, and addiction with a mindful and holistic approach—call or text her at 502-457-1823 for virtual, in-person, or telephonic appointments. VeerCast Digital Media at veercastdigitalmedia.com—Matt McCarthy runs VeerCast and is also the producer of the Kelly Patrick Show; they do video production, aerial drone photography, web design, and podcast production—contact them at [email protected] to start your own video show or podcast. Finally, Kelly’s health insurance practice in Louisville, Kentucky: Kelly can help anyone in the United States with their health insurance needs as an independent broker for individuals under 65, all Medicare-eligible individuals, group health insurance, and life and long-term care—if you want to support the podcast, please send Kelly some referrals by calling or texting him at 502-386-0978. Welcome to the Kelly Patrick Show. Thank you for tuning in. In today’s episode, I am joined by Stephan Kinsella, a retired patent attorney in Texas and a libertarian author. Stephan, thanks so much for coming on the show.
Stephan Kinsella • Thanks.
Kelly Patrick • And as you and I were talking off air about me being confused with these other two…
Name Pronunciation & Confusion with Other Kinsellas
Stephan Kinsella • 04:10
My name is actually Stephan, right? So it’s with P-H-A-N, pronounced Stephan. But there are two well-known Stephen Kinsellas in Europe who I sometimes get confused with, and I think you said you just found one of them by Googling me right before the interview.
Kelly Patrick • 04:28
I did. Right before we started, I was like, I’ve read some stuff from this guy, let me make sure I’ve got my information straight. And then I see “post-Keynesian” and a guy who looks like he’s in England, so yeah—some lefties with your name.
Stephan Kinsella • 04:46
Yeah, you were thinking, “This doesn’t sound like him.” That’s just my wayward cousin, I guess.
Kelly Patrick • 04:54
So for today’s episode, what I’d like to talk to you about is—well, I do have the Kelly Patrick Show Political Chat Facebook group, not a huge group, but I open it up to people who listen and engage. I made a post saying I’m interviewing Stephan Kinsella next week, he’s a libertarian author, suggestions for questions or topics. Okay, so I have some questions and topics for you—warning, a lot of these will be from a not-libertarian perspective, which is probably a good thing.
Stephan Kinsella • It’s fine.
Kelly Patrick • Yeah. So I’ll go through this. This is a long one. I’ll read it. Tim Neal—he’s a lefty, he doesn’t mind me saying that—he’s in the group. He says…
Tim Neal’s Critique: Libertarianism Doesn’t Solve Core Problems
Kelly Patrick • 06:18
“The problem with libertarianism is not that people haven’t heard about it. It’s that people have heard about it and they still don’t want it. Why don’t they want it? Because libertarianism doesn’t solve core problems people have. It doesn’t bring anything new to the table. It just takes stuff off the table, and it continues to go. But really, I think that’s the—he’s saying live and let live really doesn’t—it doesn’t solve anything. So based on your definition, Stephan, of libertarianism, what do you think of Tim’s question?”
Stephan Kinsella
Well, first of all, it wasn’t really a question—it was a statement. A lot of people don’t know how to ask a coherent question, so I guess I can try to infer what the intended question might have been. His observation may be correct that one problem with libertarianism not being widely accepted isn’t that it’s unknown—it’s that people just don’t want it, which is probably true to some degree. But libertarians are aspirational: we have ideals, we prefer a world of peace and prosperity, a world where people solve their disputes peacefully and don’t resort to violence against those who aren’t violating rights. That’s our ideal, just like your questioner presumably opposes rape, murder, and theft even though he knows the world isn’t ideal. So we say: here’s what the ideal is, here’s what we aspire to, here’s the society we prefer—and when we deviate from that, we call attention to it, try to fix it, try to improve it. You don’t dismiss opposition to murder just because murder will never fully disappear; we know that, but we still hold the normative view that people should be peaceful and respectful, and we shouldn’t favor laws or actions that violate rights. Just because people want something else and don’t listen to us doesn’t mean we’re wrong—it just means we don’t share the same values.
I actually don’t agree completely with the statement, though, because society has had civilization for a long time and we have a degree of it now—it’s not perfectly libertarian, but the core norms in private law (among people, not necessarily state law) are that rape, murder, and theft are wrong, and people should have property rights in their bodies and in external things. Most people believe in those things, and those norms are basically respected by the private common-law systems that evolved over the last 2,000+ years in common law and Roman law traditions. So the legal system we have and the values most average people hold are quasi-libertarian—they’re just not perfectly consistent. Your average person says yes to free markets, prosperity, economic freedom, personal liberties—but they’re more willing to make exceptions because they believe the state is necessary for special rules. They think generally we oppose theft and murder, but if the state conscripts you for war, jails you for insider trading or drugs, or takes your money for taxes, then the state gets a pass on things private people can’t do.
The reason people believe that is a combination of economic illiteracy—if they understood basic economics better, most decent, roughly libertarian people would be far more libertarian because they’d see that government policies often backfire—and political illiteracy about the true nature, history, and logic of the state, which would make them more skeptical. After COVID, a lot of people became far more skeptical of state medical advice, doctors, the establishment, vaccines—they started thinking, “I used to trust these people, but now I don’t know who to trust.” That’s a rational response. If people’s eyes opened more to the state’s nature, they’d become even more skeptical of promises from the left, the right, Republicans, Democrats. Expanding economic and political literacy would push people’s natural baseline soft libertarianism closer to our view. When I was younger I was more activist and thought if half the population read Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson we’d instantly have a near-libertarian society—that was naive. Most people aren’t interested in intellectual theory; they have their own lives. Liberty will probably succeed more organically and naturally, like Bitcoin might—not by promoters running around, but by emerging as the practical path.
Autistic Libertarians Joke & Consistency
Kelly Patrick • 12:23
You joked about us being autistic libertarians, and a lot of people listening are Republicans or Democrats and aren’t hip to that joke. Us libertarians do joke with each other—what does “us autistic libertarians” mean? Can you unpack that?
Stephan Kinsella
Yeah, it’s an inside joke among libertarians—we kid each other about being very autistic. It combines the idea of people who are completely one-dimensional, obsessed with liberty as a single issue, freaking out over any deviation, with the fact that we’re just more interested in this stuff than most people. We’ve studied it a lot, think about it constantly, and we’re obsessed with consistency. I think that’s a good thing, even if it can be taken too far—I’m not one of those libertarians who thinks liberty is the only thing that matters; it’s one important dimension of life alongside morality, being a good person, health, success, society. All these things are important and related, but distinct. Libertarians have studied this enough to focus on consistency: we say we’re against aggression and we mean it—period—while most people say “except in these cases.” So we’re extremely into consistency, and any deviation bugs us, which gets teased as obsessive-compulsive or autistic (I’m joking; I don’t mean to mock actual autism). It also sometimes implies the basement-dwelling, low-people-skills stereotype.
The point is that being really into consistency and principles isn’t a criticism of our views. You can’t dismiss libertarianism as impractical because it only works if people are angels or because we think human nature is perfectible—that’s not what libertarianism is at all. It’s extremely practical: it takes the loose collection of norms most people already hold (due process, danger of government power, why they like the Constitution and Bill of Rights) and applies them more consistently and rigorously. Most people in the West already know some of this intuitively, but experts who study it point out that giving government power—even for noble things like healthcare or schools—leads to capture, inefficiency, expense, and negative unintended consequences promised by politicians. If you have a problem with libertarianism, you have to either say you don’t believe in peace and prosperity (no civilized person admits that), or you’re against principles in general because principled people are impractical pointy-headed intellectuals (which is hard to square when you’re trying to argue against us using principles), or you have a substantive disagreement that we’re wrong on some specific idea.
The libertarian view is simple: “live and let live” isn’t some arbitrary slogan—it’s a summary of the foundation of Western civilization, the idea of private property and self-ownership. Everyone owns their body—no one can hit, touch, use, or invade it without consent (opposing slavery)—and everyone has property rights in things acquired by first use/homesteading or voluntary contract/exchange. Those are basically the only two legitimate ways to own external things. Almost everyone agrees with self-ownership and opposes slavery, murder, theft. If you disagree with those core principles, you favor slavery or communism. These three ideas—self-ownership, homesteading, voluntary exchange—are at the root of Western civilization, common law, Roman law, and libertarianism. We just take them more seriously, consistently, smooth out the rough edges, and point out deviations like marijuana prohibition or conscription that contradict the norms most people claim to hold. Unless someone opposes ideals/principles altogether, opposes peace/prosperity, or opposes self-ownership, it’s hard to see a systematic critique of libertarianism. That’s a long answer to this, guys.
Kelly Patrick • 19:51
No, I appreciate it. This is great. Once again, it’s called The Kelly Patrick Show Political Chat. It’s a Facebook group. Anyone listening can add themselves to it. Since you dove in on Tim Neal’s comment, real quick, I’m just going to read his entire statement. I don’t want him to feel like I left anything out. And then, Stephan, if you could just tell me, yep, I didn’t miss anything, and then we can move on, or if you have something to add.
So he says, the problem with libertarianism is not that people haven’t heard about it. It’s that people have heard about it and they still don’t want it. Why don’t they want it? Because libertarianism doesn’t solve core problems people have. It doesn’t bring anything new to the table. It just takes stuff off the table without any substitution. It doesn’t fill someone’s need. It just tells them the thing they’re filling their needs with, i.e. government, is bad. And that’s never going to be compelling. Libertarianism offers them nothing. Well, there are other people out there who can print literally as much money as they want, offering them the world. Quote, we’ll leave you alone is just not going to appeal to the masses. Quote, live and let live is just not that inspiring as a rallying cry. The problem of libertarianism is that its ideas are only appealing to libertarians who are destined to be just a tiny percentage of the population.
Stephan Kinsella
Well, there’s a lot there, and let me talk about some of it. First of all, he could be right that libertarianism is just not appealing to a lot of people, but I don’t know what that’s supposed to be a criticism of. Again, if you’re someone who opposes murder, that doesn’t mean the murders that inevitably happen are justified—it just means the world isn’t perfect. I personally think he may be wrong about “live and let live” not appealing; I think that’s basically a slogan most people actually agree with—they’re just not 100% consistent about it. If you tell the average person we need laws to protect people, they generally agree they don’t want the state regulating bedrooms or caring if someone smokes a joint, and they don’t want 100% of their salary taken. Most people want to minimize state intrusions on liberties and only favor laws stopping things when people aren’t living and letting live.
When you say libertarianism offers nothing, there is something to that criticism because most people are statists—they believe in the state for public-goods problems that free people can’t solve without it. So when an anarchist says “I’m an anarchist,” they think, “Okay, what’s your system?” But anarchists don’t necessarily have a detailed system; we just oppose the state the way most people oppose murder—it’s a value proposition, not a full blueprint for every problem. Anarchism points out the problem in society: aggression, both private crime (which everyone opposes) and public/institutionalized crime by the state, which is more insidious and kills far more people. We oppose both, but we don’t claim to have a perfect replacement system—just like opposing murder doesn’t require you to have solved how to eliminate all murder.
That said, a more nuanced view is that politics is only one part of life. Libertarianism is unique because it’s the only philosophy that opposes aggression and slavery on principle, rooted in self-ownership—every other philosophy makes exceptions for state actions like imprisonment for taxes or drugs. What’s wrongly called “right libertarianism” (Hoppe and I call it realistic libertarianism) recognizes that the state has become so pervasive that people are dependent on it—government jobs, welfare, public schools, roads, police, military. People freak out at abolishing socialized medicine because they can’t imagine healthcare without the state, just like Americans can’t imagine roads without government. The state supplants natural private solutions, so when we remove it, those natural institutions come back—private education, private roads, private security. We’re not proposing a vacuum; we’re saying decentralized, consumer-responsive alternatives would emerge, more efficient and less conflicted.
This is the distinction from “left libertarians,” who are more egalitarian and sometimes oppose natural hierarchies or employment contracts as soft aggression. Realistic libertarians see natural authority, elites, and hierarchies as necessary in civil society to fill roles the state currently distorts. So when the state disappears, those come back stronger—not corrupted by state intervention.
Voting in 2024 & 2024 Candidates
Kelly Patrick • 31:19
Okay, good stuff. Stephan, since this next question involves elections and really presidential elections, I’ll ask before I ask the question, are you going to vote in November?
Stephan Kinsella • 31:34
Probably, because I have a normal wife and she gets upset if I don’t vote—in particular to stop the Democrats from winning so our taxes don’t go up as much as possible. So I’ll vote to placate my wife, and also why not? I don’t think voting does any good really. I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s immoral not to vote.
Kelly Patrick • So you’ll vote for Trump?
Stephan Kinsella
Well, I’m not sure if I’ll vote for the Libertarian or RFK or for Trump. I’m in Texas. I want Trump to win—I’ll put it that way because I don’t want Harris to win. Although, to be honest, I’m not sure Trump will be better than Harris. It’s hard to say which one has a higher chance of causing the draft to come back or nuclear war or societal breakdown. But my best hunch is that Trump is not nearly as dangerous as the Democrats. So I want Trump to win. I’d prefer a libertarian to win, but that’s not going to happen. So I might end up voting for Chase Oliver. There’s a lot of controversy in the Libertarian Party right now about his nomination—he’s not ideal, but he’s definitely a real libertarian unlike some previous candidates. Not Gary Johnson or William Weld or milquetoast Jo Jorgensen. He’s solid on what I’ve heard him say. I don’t like some of his previous virtue-signaling COVID stuff, but he never endorsed government lockdowns—just personal mask stuff, like a Thanksgiving party photo with masks. A lot of my friends hate him for that, but to me that’s not my biggest problem.
I had a post on Twitter the other day joking that if he would just come out against patent law, I’d vote for him—because no one’s ever run for president against patent and copyright, not even on the libertarian side. Intellectual property is my hobby horse; I’ve been writing against patent and copyright for 30 years as a (mostly retired) patent attorney.
Kelly Patrick • 36:07
And why should someone be opposed to patent and copyright laws?
Against Intellectual Property (Patents & Copyright)
Stephan Kinsella
This is something I’ve written about for a long time. Most libertarians agree on big evils to reduce: taxation, central banking/Fed, government schools, welfare, war, drug war. I think intellectual property—especially patent and copyright—should be added to that list, arguably in the top two or three worst. Even hardcore minarchists who accept some taxation or war as necessary evils admit they’re not ideal. But people think patents and copyrights are legitimate property rights, so they don’t see anything wrong to fight. No one pretends taxation defends individual rights—it’s begrudgingly accepted as necessary. But if property rights are good, why not intellectual property? The problem is that’s totally wrong.
I realized this 30 years ago when I started practicing patent law as a libertarian. I looked at arguments for and against IP on libertarian and economic grounds. Some libertarians were against it, but most—like Ayn Rand utilitarians—were for it, thinking you need IP to incentivize invention and art, to let creators recoup costs. I thought as a new thinker who understood both sophisticated IP law and Austrian/libertarian theory, I’d clear up the confusion and justify patents. But every argument failed. When I flipped the assumption—“what if IP is wrong?”—everything made sense.
The purpose of law is to allow peaceful coexistence in a world of scarce resources where conflict is possible. The benefit of society is trade and cooperation; the danger is theft or violence. Law establishes rules everyone accepts about who owns what to minimize conflict: self-ownership (no one invades your body without consent) and property rights in scarce, tangible things acquired by homesteading (first use of unowned resources) or voluntary contract/exchange. Any law that deviates undermines those core rules—like a 10% annual tax takes part of your rights.
Patents and copyrights do the same but worse. A patent gives a monopoly on a way of arranging matter (a process, machine, design). If I patent a smartphone touchscreen with rounded corners, I can stop others from using their own factories, materials, and property to make similar devices—they can’t compete. Copyright stops you from using your own printing press, paper, and ink to copy a book. Both violate others’ property rights in tangible things. Practically, copyright distorts culture, censors speech, and arguably violates the First Amendment (free speech/press ratified after the IP clause). Patents slow innovation by granting monopolies.
Examples like Luke Combs covering Tracy Chapman’s “Fast Car” (she gets royalties via licensing) or Bikram Yoga trademark/patent attempts show the system at work—not abuses, but logical applications. Every patent is outrageous because competition is supposed to be suffered in a free market. Abolish patent and copyright tomorrow—society would have more innovation, freedom, artistic output, less distortion. Some things like Social Security might need transition; patent/copyright and the drug war should end immediately.
Libertarian Party Relevance
Kelly Patrick • 53:05
Okay. Continuing right along. First, I should ask, Stephan, how are you on time? You got some more time for me?
Stephan Kinsella • I do.
Kelly Patrick • Okay. Todd Neal has a question. He said, what will it take for the Libertarian Party to become relevant in national elections?
Stephan Kinsella
That’s a good question. Libertarians being libertarians, you’d get 11 answers from 10 people. My take: I’ve never been super active in the party until recently—I was more of an intellectual activist. I used to be more idealistic, thinking economic illiteracy was the main problem—if half the population read Hazlitt, we’d have libertarianism overnight. That was naive. Most people aren’t interested in theory; they have lives. You won’t win by handing out pamphlets or annoying family at Thanksgiving. Liberty will succeed organically, not through activism—like Bitcoin won’t win by constant promotion but by natural adoption.
Humanity is still early-stage—superstitious apes who came out of the trees too soon. We might need thousands more years to mature, assuming we don’t destroy ourselves with nukes, bioweapons, or gray goo. But if we survive, technological innovation compounds, making each generation richer—not because we’re smarter (welfare might even dumb us down), but because we build on accumulated knowledge/recipes. Patents slow that innovation; without them, we might already have flying cars and 200-year lifespans.
People grudgingly accept capitalism now because socialism collapsed in 1991—that was a bigger lesson than any book. COVID opened eyes to state incompetence and malice. As we get richer, we become more libertarian naturally—we can afford to do more privately, need less state provision. In a hyper-rich future with AI, robots, 3D printing, personal nuclear power, private security, the state atrophies like Britain’s monarchy—still there, but ceremonial. Liberty emerges not because activists win, but because it becomes inevitable. We can keep the flame alive (Nock’s “remnant”), make marginal differences, live better personally.
For the Libertarian Party specifically: America’s winner-take-all system favors the duopoly—third parties can’t win because of wasted-vote fears and no proportional representation. It’s hopeless for national relevance; less than 1% are hardcore libertarians. I joined ~6 years ago with Tom Woods et al. to at least make sure any LP that exists runs real libertarians and doesn’t misrepresent small-l libertarianism. I helped on the judicial committee and wrote a clearer definition of aggression/property rights in the platform/bylaws (enacted in Reno). They removed the anti-bigotry and pro-choice planks—I agree on bigotry (irrelevant to libertarianism); ambivalent on abortion since libertarians are divided.
I’ll probably leave after my term ends. I’ve given up on activism as a path to victory—it’s a hobby that might win occasional local things. Focus locally, run principled articulate candidates, but don’t expect them to win nationally.
U.S. Military & Foreign Policy
Kelly Patrick • 01:05:00
Okay. Do you have time for me to continue with another question?
Stephan Kinsella • Sure.
Kelly Patrick • Okay. Tim Cordova—I love this, I love that you get to tackle these. This is a long one again. I’m going to read the whole thing. “I would like to know what the libertarian views are on the U.S. military with regards to the following. Do they support advancing military capabilities and equipment? Do they cut military funding altogether? Or do they support it in a different funding model? What do they do with our bases, both domestic and foreign? I ask this because I have noticed a broad range of responses from various libertarians on these topics. And I am interested in his views on these issues regards Tim. Tim is a right-leaning former military guy. I interact with him a lot. What are your thoughts?”
Stephan Kinsella
Let’s make distinctions: libertarianism vs. Libertarian Party, and American issues vs. universal libertarian principles. Most libertarians (minarchist and anarchist, American and international) are anti-war and want to avoid entangling alliances. Anarchists oppose the state entirely so oppose state militaries per se. Minarchists want minimal government, including defensive military, but avoid war at all costs.
For American libertarians on the U.S. system: slash the military budget by half or two-thirds, maintain strong defense (nuclear deterrent, robust local posture), but stop overseas meddling—close half or more foreign bases, bring troops home, reduce size, end entangling alliances, stop interfering in Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan/Middle East. Rely on diplomacy, UN if needed, mind our own business like George Washington’s farewell address warned. That’s not isolationism—it’s free trade, relations with the world, but no empire-building or provocation. A $300–500 billion budget could still provide strong defense without policing the globe.
Transitioning bases/equipment overseas is technical—sell, rent, or orderly withdraw to avoid Afghanistan-style abandonment of billions in gear (which happens because the military doesn’t bear real costs—taxpayers do). The core is changing foreign policy to non-interventionist.
Tim laughed at Bob Murphy videos and called privatized solutions naive, especially for military. Mocking principles or intellect isn’t an argument. Bob’s written on decentralized stateless society—insurance companies playing big roles in dispute resolution, liability, arbitration treaties to avoid violence (expensive/destructive). People would join agreements for security, no nukes in basements, etc. It’s food for thought from Hoppe, Murphy, others. In a world of aggressive states, even an ancap America might face invasion risks if it disarms unilaterally—that’s a problem with aggression, not a defense of our state. If other states force us to have one, keep it minimal to minimize damage. I’m not a foreign-policy expert; this is intuitive from rights theory.
I’m tired of constitutionalists saying return to the Constitution—it wasn’t libertarian. “Constitution” means to constitute/create a government. The 1787 document empowered a new central government over 13 independent states post-secession from Britain—not to protect rights, but to set up and empower the U.S. government. Limits were attempted but mostly failed (Bill of Rights interpreted by government’s courts). Democracy and the Constitution were steps backward (per Hoppe). The founding had slavery, no women’s property rights, conscription, loyalist property destruction, class biases (framers benefiting from IP clause they wrote). Revolutionary War had civil-liberties violations. Not a libertarian ideal.
Money, Fiat, Gold, Bitcoin & MMT
Kelly Patrick • 01:19:39
That’s okay. If it’s all right, I have one last question from Randall Sanders—Brazilian jiu-jitsu black belt instructor and competitor in Nashville, Tennessee. He’s a lefty, kind of a subscriber to modern monetary theory. His question: number one, is he opposed to fiat currency? Number two, if he is and he would like to tie the economy to a real world item like gold, how does economic scaling work when there is a finite amount of that item?
Stephan Kinsella
This is my intelligent-layman’s take. Bob Murphy has debunked MMT well—it’s pseudoscientific Keynesianism, complete bullshit. Austrians (Rothbardian especially) criticize central fiat banking on economic and political grounds. Money is unique—not a consumer or capital good, but sui generis: a medium of exchange. Producing more units of ordinary goods increases wealth (more cars = more wealth). More money doesn’t—it redistributes wealth. Private gold mining causes mild inflation but low distortion. Money solves barter’s double coincidence of wants (you can sell to anyone for money, buy from anyone) and enables rational economic calculation (Mises: socialism fails without money prices to compare heterogeneous resources).
Any fixed money supply works once sufficient for transactions—printing more never creates wealth, just redistributes via inflation (hidden tax). Gold was decent: low stock-to-flow (~1–2% mined yearly), low inflation/distortion. But physical gold failed—unsafe to carry/store, led to banks/paper substitutes, fractional reserves, then government seizure/cut to fiat. Fiat’s problem isn’t paper/digital—it’s government coercion outlawing/taxing/regulating alternatives.
Gold wouldn’t return well; physical disadvantages vs. digital. I’m more Bitcoin than gold. Bitcoin (or successor) could become world reserve—fixed supply (capped, actually decreasing from loss/friction). Money isn’t wealth; you only need enough units for transactions. Bitcoin outcompetes inflationary fiat as people flee store-of-value options (stocks, real estate, foreign land) that are risky/illiquid/tax-heavy. As fiat inflation worsens, more flight to hard assets like Bitcoin. It’s organic escape from moral-hazard fiat systems.
Closing & Plugs
Kelly Patrick • 01:32:05
Stephan, I really appreciate your time. Thank you very much for coming on the show. Before we wrap things up, do you have any plugs or anything you’d like to mention?
Stephan Kinsella • 01:32:16
Anyone interested in these ideas can check my book Legal Foundations of a Free Society on StephanKinsella.com—free PDF there now, EPUB coming soon; hard copy/Kindle available. My IP work is at C4SIF.org (Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom). Follow me on Twitter/X or Facebook at NSKinsella. Feel free to email or tweet questions—I’m generally receptive.
Kelly Patrick • 01:33:06
Okay, great stuff. Stephan, thank you very much for your time.
Stephan Kinsella • Thanks so much. I appreciate it.
Kelly Patrick • Thanks so much. I appreciate it.
Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:33:08 — 80.6MB)
