“Thus human economy and property have a joint economic origin since both have, as the ultimate reason for their existence, the fact that goods exist whose available quantities are smaller than the requirements of men. Property, therefore, like human economy, is not an arbitrary invention but rather the only practically possible solution of the problem that is, in the nature of things, imposed upon us by the disparity between requirements for, and available quantities of, all economic goods.”
See also Heath Pearson, Origins of Law and Economics: The Economists’ New Science of Law, 1830–1930 (Historical Perspectives on Modern Economics), p. 151; and Josef Sima, “Praxeology as Law & Economics,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 18, no. 2 (Spring 2004), pp. 73–89, at 78.
The Libertarian Party’s 2022 convention, in Sparks (Reno) NV is over. It was an exhausting but interesting 3 full days. The Mises Caucus swept the LNC. I was also elected to serve on the Judicial Committee (see below). A few ad-hoc amendments to the LP Platform were made as well as a larger set of amendments recommended by the Platform Committee.
My main goal in joining the LP about 5 years ago was to have it field more principled, libertarian candidates and to have clearer, more principled libertarian messaging.
To that end I worked to help develop a definition of aggression and property rights to add to the Platform, since there the current LP Platform (https://www.lp.org/platform/) contained no clear definition of aggression or property rights or the relation between these two fundamental concepts. It is critical to include a clear, general statement to this effect to distinguish what makes the Libertarian perspective unique and to clarify our political principles. [continue reading…]
I posted on Facebook about a new book, The Essential Women of Liberty [website; pdf] which includes 10 profiles including that of Deirdre McCloskey, formerly Donald. The editor, Aeon Skoble, a former friend, has now defriended me as have some other longtime friends/acquaintances. Oh well. Their loss. I’m not backing down.
In case Facebook censors the post, I am reproducing it below: [continue reading…]
A high school student sent me a question. Here’s my dashed-off reply:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 4:21 PM E wrote:
Hey Mr. Kinsella, I’ve found myself very interested in your works concerning argumentation ethics. I find myself pretty convinced of it, but I do have a few questions about it. I think I have a hang-up on particularistic norms, and their invalidity.
Your justification seems to be that when two agents are engaging in argumentation, they (prima facie) assume some common, morally relevant quality which is sufficient to grant self ownership to both of them. If they posit another property (such as only people with brown eyes have rights), they have to demonstrate how it is grounded in the nature of things.
International Law, Libertarian Principles, and the Russia-Ukraine War
by Stephan Kinsella
Free Life, 19 April 2022
In a discussion with some fellow libertarians about the current Russia-Ukraine war, I noticed some of them kept avoiding condemning Russia’s invasion, criticizing pro-Ukraine western media and state propaganda, and kept changing the subject to the baleful role the US and NATO have played. NATO should have disbanded after the Cold War ended; NATO is “provoking” Russia, and so on. “Of course Russia doesn’t want NATO on its doorstep and perceives it as a threat; how would the US feel if Russia were to position missiles in Canada?” And so on. They didn’t come right out and take Russia’s side, but I have seen some people literally defend Russia and claim it is simply defending itself from aggression from the US/NATO and Ukraine or via Ukraine, and, moreover, that Russia is exercising heroic restraint in an attempt to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damages. Read more>>
Much of “classical international law” theory, developed by the Catholic Scholastics, notably the 16th-century Spanish Scholastics such as Vitoria and Suarez, and then the Dutch Protestant Scholastic Grotius and by 18th- and 19th-century jurists, was an explanation of the criteria for a just war. For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.
… Classical international law … should be brought back as quickly as possible.
Update: in this tweet, I respond to Elon Musk’s promoted tweet where Jeffrey “Sachs” explians “How the US Provoked the Invasion of Ukraine.”
From my tweet:
“This is not how international law works. There was no binding international obligation at all from these “promises.” Russia and other states are akin to “sophisticated parties” in large business deals; there are rules for what constitutes a binding treaty under pacta sunt servanda, for what gives rise to an actual binding legal obligation under international law. For example, like Russia’s agreeing to Ukraine’s borders after the USSR fell, and like the USSR’s accession to the UN Charter which makes it illegal to invade another sovereign state. See my article “International Law, Libertarian Principles, and the Russia-Ukraine War” https://stephankinsella.com/2022/04/international-law-libertarian-principles-and-the-russia-ukraine-war/…. Expanding NATO is not a threat to Russia. Even if they pretend to perceive it that way, which I doubt they actually do. They are mostly upset at being treated like the thuggish threat they are and having their expansionist and imperialist ambitions thwarted. That said, am not saying NATO should have expanded and provoked thuggish, irrational Russia; I think NATO should have been disbanded. But let’s not pretend Russia has a valid excuse here. Still, a reasonable solution ought to be reached by negotiation. The US should stand ready to remove all financial support for Ukraine, agree to take Ukraine membership in NATO off the table for X years, get Russia to agree to a neutral zone for the contested territories, agree not to put NATO missiles etc. inside Ukraine, have Russia agree to Ukraine’s attempt to join the EU, and revive the old cooperation between Russia and NATO to reduce tensions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro-Atlantic_Partnership_Council…). The US and its allies could also agree to ease various sanctions on Russia. This could be a win-win for everyone including the mixed populations in Crimea etc.“
Back in 2019 one Mario Demolidor asked me to field some questions. I replied to one of them at length. It was:
1) People often dislike libertarianism because they do not see how a fully contracted private justice system can work. So, I ask, how can we deal in a libertarian society with criminals or suspects who deny justice and make no contracts to elect a judge? How to get them to trial?
I have just been made aware that he later published an edited and rearranged version of my responses at Stateless Justice | By: Stephan Kinsella (March 10, 2020). I reprint his article below in case his is ever lost (this happens all the time), and append after it my original emailed response to him (unedited) for completeness and in case there are any errors or omissions from his version (I have not checked). [continue reading…]
This libertarian movement of ours has its fair share of drama, crazy stories, eccentric personalities, losers, weirdos, and so on. I’ve been involved since the late 80s, 1 so have seen my fair share of this bullshit.
I just heard Murray Sabrin, on a fairly recent episode of the Tom Woods podcast (ep. 1988), speak positively about the late Bob Wenzel of “Economic Policy Journal” (sic, as it wasn’t a “journal”; it was just a clickbaity blog) as being the rare person who could give financial and investment advice from an Austrian perspective.
Robert “Bob” Wenzel, Raymond Nize, or whatever his real name was
(You’ll note I said “late.” Bob, or whatever his real name was, allegedly died last year. See David Gordon, “Robert Wenzel, RIP” (May 27, 2021); Robert Wenzel – 1957 to 2021; Taylor Lewis, “Rest in Peace, Robert Wenzel” (June 12, 2021); Walter Block, “Bob Wenzel, RIP” (June 1, 2021); Daniel McAdams, “Robert Wenzel, RIP” (May 26, 2021). I say “allegedly” and express skepticism that Bob Wenzel was his real name for reasons that will become apparent below.)
Interesting discussion re a new book from Billy Christmas, whom I also published in Libertarian Papers: “The Possibility of Thick Libertarianism” (2016), the abstract of which is:
“Abstract: The scope of libertarian law is normally limited to the application of the non-aggression principle (NAP), nothing more and nothing less. However, judging when the NAP has been violated requires not only a conception of praxeological notions such as aggression, but also interpretive understanding of what synthetic events count as the relevant praxeological types. Interpretive understanding—or verstehen—can be extremely heterogeneous between agents. The particular verständnis taken by a judge has considerable moral and political implications. Since selecting a verständnis is pre-requisite to applying the NAP, the NAP itself cannot tell us which one we ought morally to choose. Therefore the application of the NAP calls on moral and political considerations outside of the NAP itself. Since some of these are more consistent with an endorsement of the NAP than others, libertarianism is not a “thin” commitment to the NAP alone, but a “thick” commitment to the NAP and other supporting moral and political considerations.”
I’m continually puzzled at the hatred some lowbrow libertarians have for the UN and international law. Did they miss the “we are not Birchers” memo?
[Update: See also Murray Rothbard, “Just War,” in John Denson, ed., The Costs of War: “Classical international law … should be brought back as quickly as possible.” See also:
I got the expected flack. Including a private comment from a friend I respect who said, in essence:
There is nothing good about the UN and nothing bad about the Birchers. The UN is funded by fiat inflation and tax dollars. It’s not a voluntary organization. It’s built on theft. How can a libertarian find that anything but criminal?
Smart Contracts discussion with a libertarian friend, B:
KINSELLA:
… it’s not smart, and it’s not a contract. It’s just code as far as i can tell. You ever coded? It’s just a bunch of defined if-then instructions. [continue reading…]
Recent Comments