Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:43:51 — 95.1MB)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 037. [Transcript.]
I spoke last weekend at the “Liberty in the Pines” (facebook event) conference at Stephen F. Austin State University, in Nacogdoches, Texas. Sponsored by the Young Americans for Liberty chapter and the Charles Koch Foundation, this one-day event brought together liberty-lovers of all stripes from surrounding areas. My speech was “Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory.” Stefan Molyneux and Jeff Tucker appeared and delivered speeches as well (with Jeff’s inspiring keynote resulting in a resounding standing ovation). Walter Block conducted an “Ask a Libertarian” Q&A session (remotely), and relative newcomer Jessica Hughes delivered a surprisingly radical and resounding speech on “The Constitution of Faux Authority.” [Update: See Liberty in the Pines Roundup.]
This podcast episode includes my speech and Q&A (about 54 minutes) plus the panel Q&A (about another 50 minutes). The panel Q&A touched on issues like peaceful parenting, spanking, and so on. Not to toot my own horn, but I know I have a lot of a/v material out there, so I do believe this speech of mine is one of the most important I’ve ever done.
Grok shownotes: In this lecture from the Libertarian Papers Audio Series, recorded circa 2010, titled “Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory,” Stephan Kinsella critiques John Locke’s labor theory of property, arguing it introduced a metaphorical and imprecise framework that has distorted political and property rights theory (0:00-5:09). Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney, contrasts Locke’s idea—that mixing labor with unowned resources creates property rights—with the libertarian homesteading principle, which emphasizes first use or appropriation without requiring labor (5:10-15:14). He contends that Locke’s labor metaphor fosters confusion, notably contributing to the flawed concept of intellectual property (IP), which wrongly treats non-scarce ideas as ownable, and connects this to broader errors like the labor theory of value that influenced Marxism (15:15-25:24). Kinsella’s analysis highlights how imprecise language, such as “owning labor,” has led to significant theoretical missteps.
Grok detailed summary below.
Update: Several favorable comments: e.g. “It is a shame how few views this has. I use this video often to help libertarians understand the trap of “self ownership” and I am so glad, now years ago, you fixed this for me in our interview”, “Stephan, this talk is gold. Sharing.”, “This was really helpful. I appreciate and enjoy Kinsella’s focus on using language precisely.”
Update: See Stephen Decker’s report on the event.
Update: See also Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value, discussing International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 246 (1918), where the Supreme Court recognized a quasi-property right in the fruits of one’s labor, what is sometimes called the “sweat of the brow” doctrine (a doctrine later rejected in the copyright context in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
For some background on some of the issues I discussed, see:
- Hume on Intellectual Property and the Problematic “Labor” Metaphor
- Locke on IP; Mises, Rothbard, and Rand on Creation, Production, and “Rearranging”
- “Locke, Smith, Marx and the Labor Theory of Value,” Mises Economics Blog (June 23, 2010) (archived comments)
- “What Libertarianism Is”
- “How We Come To Own Ourselves“
- “Montessori, Peace, and Libertarianism“
- John Bremer, “Education as Peace”
Update: The YouTube at the bottom had inferior audio to the podcast version that I recorded using the iPhone in my pocket. The YouTube immediately below incorporates the superior audio track (thanks to Manuel Lora).
Original YouTube, with inferior audio:
GROK SUMMARY
-
Introduction and Locke’s Mistake (0:00-5:09): Kinsella introduces Locke’s labor theory as a significant error in political philosophy, relevant to liberty (0:21-1:54).
-
Libertarian Property Framework (5:10-15:14): Contrasts Locke’s labor theory with libertarian homesteading, emphasizing first use and scarcity (1:54-12:21).
-
Labor Theory’s Flaws and IP (15:15-25:24): Critiques Locke’s metaphorical labor ownership, linking it to IP and the labor theory of value (12:21-21:26).
-
IP and Creation Misconceptions (25:25-35:34): Argues that labor-based IP justifies monopolies, clarifying property as first-use-based (21:26-31:03).
-
Contract and Labor Metaphors (35:35-45:44): Reframes “selling labor” as title transfers, rejecting labor as ownable (31:03-41:12).
-
Correcting Locke’s Error (45:45-55:54): Advocates a scarcity-based property theory to eliminate IP, addressing objections like voluntary slavery (41:12-51:21).
-
Conclusion and Locke’s Legacy (55:55-56:05): Rejects Locke’s labor theory and IP, urging clear libertarian principles (51:21-56:05).
-
0:00-5:09 (Introduction and Locke’s Mistake)
Description: Kinsella opens with a humorous tone, introducing the lecture at a post-lunch event and framing John Locke’s labor theory of property as a “big mistake” that has “ruined political theory” (0:21-0:50). He contrasts his thesis with Ayn Rand’s view of Kant as history’s most evil man, noting Locke’s contributions but identifying his labor metaphor as a source of confusion (0:51-2:00). Kinsella highlights the dangers of metaphorical language in libertarianism, citing Supreme Court Justice Cardozo and Austrian economists like Mises (2:01-5:09).
Summary: The block sets the stage, introducing Locke’s labor theory as a flawed metaphor that has distorted political philosophy, with relevance to libertarian clarity. -
5:10-10:00 (Libertarian Property Framework)
Description: Kinsella discusses the overuse of metaphors in libertarianism, like “self-ownership,” preferring “body ownership” for clarity (5:10-7:02). He introduces Mises’ praxeology, explaining human action as using scarce means to achieve ends, and contrasts this with labor as a subset of action, not a special entity (7:03-9:38). He critiques terms like “limited government” for imprecision, arguing libertarians favor specific limits on the state (9:39-10:00).
Summary: The libertarian framework is established, emphasizing clear language and scarcity-based property rights, setting up the critique of Locke’s labor theory. -
10:01-15:14 (Labor Theory’s Flaws and IP)
Description: Kinsella elaborates on praxeology, detailing how humans use scarce means (e.g., eggs, ovens) and non-scarce knowledge (e.g., recipes) to act, arguing IP wrongly assigns property rights to ideas (10:01-12:21). He introduces the libertarian property rule—first appropriation or contract—and contrasts it with Locke’s labor-based approach, which assumes owning labor leads to owning resources (12:22-14:15). He cites David Hume’s critique of Locke’s metaphorical labor ownership (14:16-15:14).
Summary: Locke’s labor theory is critiqued as metaphorical, leading to IP errors, with libertarian homesteading offered as a clearer alternative. -
15:15-20:00 (IP and Creation Misconceptions)
Description: Kinsella argues that Locke’s labor theory contributed to the labor theory of value, influencing Ricardo, Smith, and Marx, with disastrous economic consequences (15:15-18:24). He critiques the labor theory of property for suggesting labor creates ownership, using an employee building a chair to show ownership depends on prior resource control, not labor (18:25-20:00).
Summary: The labor theory’s link to economic errors and IP is explored, clarifying that ownership precedes labor, not derives from it. -
20:01-25:00 (Creation and Property Rights)
Description: Kinsella debunks the idea of creation as a third source of property rights, alongside homesteading and contract, arguing it stems from Locke’s labor metaphor (20:01-21:26). He uses examples like a poem or chair to show that creation transforms owned resources, not ideas, and critiques possessive arguments (e.g., “my labor”) as sloppy thinking (21:27-24:12). He emphasizes that wealth creation doesn’t alter property rights (24:13-25:00).
Summary: The creation-based ownership argument is refuted, showing it conflates wealth with property rights, rooted in Locke’s labor confusion. -
25:01-30:00 (Property and Contract Clarity)
Description: Kinsella critiques the term “property” as misleading, preferring “property right in a scarce resource” to avoid IP confusion (25:01-27:04). He addresses contract objections, arguing that “selling labor” doesn’t imply owning labor but involves conditional title transfers, per Rothbard’s title transfer theory (27:05-29:01). He uses a singing contract example to illustrate this (29:02-30:00).
Summary: The need for precise property and contract terminology is emphasized, reframing labor contracts to avoid labor ownership myths. -
30:01-35:00 (Labor Contracts and Misconceptions)
Description: Kinsella elaborates on contracts as title transfers, not binding promises, explaining that labor contracts transfer money conditioned on action, not labor itself (30:01-32:14). He critiques the assumption that labor must be ownable to be sold, arguing this stems from equating labor contracts with goods exchanges (32:15-34:12). He introduces Walter Block’s voluntary slavery argument (34:13-35:00).
Summary: Labor contract misconceptions are clarified, showing they involve outcomes, not labor ownership, challenging IP and slavery arguments. -
35:01-40:00 (Ownership and Slavery)
Description: Kinsella refutes Block’s claim that owning one’s body implies the right to sell it into slavery, arguing ownership means control, not necessarily alienability (35:01-37:24). He distinguishes body ownership (inherent) from resource ownership (via homesteading or contract), suggesting bodies are inalienable due to their non-acquired nature (37:25-39:12). He reiterates the need for clear language (39:13-40:00).
Summary: The slavery objection is addressed, clarifying ownership’s limits and reinforcing the rejection of labor-based property rights. -
40:01-45:00 (Clearing Philosophical Confusion)
Description: Kinsella argues that clearing metaphorical confusion (e.g., “owning labor”) resolves IP and other errors, emphasizing that property rights address scarce resource conflicts (40:01-42:30). He reiterates that creation and labor are not ownership sources, using examples to show prior ownership determines rights (42:31-44:12). He prepares for Q&A, noting time constraints (44:13-45:00).
Summary: The philosophical importance of clear language is stressed, resolving IP and labor theory errors through a scarcity-based framework. -
45:01-50:00 (Libertarian Property Principles)
Description: Kinsella advocates a first-use-based property system, rejecting labor-based theories to eliminate IP and align with libertarianism (45:01-47:24). He addresses objections, like the assumption that ownership implies alienability, using body ownership to show control doesn’t always mean sellability (47:25-49:12). He critiques libertarian attempts to rehabilitate Locke for IP (49:13-50:00).
Summary: A scarcity-based property system is proposed, addressing objections and rejecting IP as a labor-based error. -
50:01-55:54 (Locke’s Legacy and IP)
Description: Kinsella critiques libertarians like Richard Epstein for misinterpreting Locke to support IP, arguing Locke viewed IP as a prudential, not natural, right (50:01-52:24). He emphasizes that Locke’s labor theory was metaphorical, not intended to justify IP, and urges rejection of such interpretations (52:25-54:12). He concludes by advocating clear thinking to avoid Locke’s errors (54:13-55:54).
Summary: Locke’s limited IP support is clarified, rejecting labor-based IP justifications and promoting precise libertarian principles. -
55:55-56:05 (Conclusion)
Description: Kinsella wraps up, thanking the audience and reiterating that Locke’s labor theory, while influential, was a mistake that libertarians should correct to preserve clarity and liberty (55:55-56:05).
Summary: The lecture concludes with a call to reject Locke’s labor theory, advocating for a first-use-based property system free of IP.
Fantastic presentation. Highly recommended. I think focusing on “who owns this scarce resource” is a great approach.
Wow, during the Q&A both Jeffrey Tucker and Stephan Kinsella state their agreement with Stefan Molyneux that spanking children is aggression!