From some Twitter posts:

[continue reading…]

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 444.

Update: Michael S. Milano, “Privacy and Fungibility: The Forgotten Virtues of Sound Money,” Mises Wire (07/05/2025).

I had forgotten about this conversation with “AlexAnarcho” back in May 2024. Here it is.

Property rights, ideas & fungibility w/ Stephan Kinsella released 05/02/2024

Stephan Kinsella is a pioneer on the topic of intellectual property (IP). His arguments against IP also carry over to the cyberspace. Can you even “own” Bitcoin? After all, it is just a number on an elliptic curve…

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:58:24 — 115.4MB)

Related:

• Structural Safeguards to Limit Legislation and State Power
• Constitutional Structures in Defense of Freedom (ASC 1998)
• Randy Barnett’s “Federalism Amendment”–A Counterproposal; and related posts
• How to Fix the US
• KOL345 | Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PorcFest 2021)
• KOL359 | State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PFS 2021)
• Libertarian Nation and Related Projects

A friend remound me of this FB post (thanks, Brian). From Feb. 14, 2020:

How to easily fix things (or make them way better). These are simple, common sense policies that either of the two major US parties ought to be able to get on board with:

1. Legalize marijuana federally. (And all other drugs, while you’re at it)

2. Bring home 50% of foreign US troops over the next 5-10 years [continue reading…]

My name is [x], and I am an independent scholar specializing in Austrian Economics. I am familiar with your work on Estoppel and this is a reason why I contact you. Recently, I encountered a problem that I can’t resolve definitively. The issue involves the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and its apparent ambiguity. I haven’t found any references addressing the role of bystanders, except for discussions of their use as shields in self-defense contexts. My question is: should a bystander remain neutral, or is voluntary intervention on the side of a victim consistent with the NAP? What would be considered the default action or non-action according to the NAP?

Me:

“it’s okay to help people” [continue reading…]

Reason has had its 25 staffers say who they will vote for: 12 in favor of Chase Oliver, 6 will not vote, 3 for Harris, one Nikki Haley write-in, one Kennedy write-in, two two undecideds. None for Trump. Wow.

Daniel Klein and Host make the case that Trump is obviously the lesser evil, yet the leading libertarian organization won’t say this (other mainstream “respectable” groups like Cato, Mercatus, AEI, etc won’t even come clean, as Reason at least did) I think he’s right. [continue reading…]

Related:

• The Blockean Proviso
• Van Dun on Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement
• Adam Haman and Matt Sands on Immigration, Property Rights, and Hostile Encirclement
• Van Dun, Barnett on Freedom vs. Property
• Dominiak & Wysocki, “Libertarianism, Defense of Property, and Absolute Rights”

Background: Van Dun on Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement. J.C. Lester makes a similar mistake. See “Against Against Intellectual Property: A Short Refutation of Meme Communism“; Anarchist Libertarian Jan Lester’s Argument for Intellectual Property

From a twitter post:

The right way to look at it, IMO, is that people do and should want “freedom” and that is why they should want property rights–as the only means to achieve the end of genuine freedom. Just as Rand almost defined happiness as the emotion that comes from successful living, freedom is whatever you are able to enjoy when your property rights are respected. Property and justice must be more fundamental and freedom dependent and based on property rights and defined in terms of property rights. [continue reading…]

See Survivors of polygamist sect fence off 1,000 acres of US Forest Service land in southwestern Colorado.

DENVER — A conflict brewing in southwestern Colorado pits ranchers and outdoors enthusiasts against survivors of former polygamist leader Warren Jeffs after the latter group declared itself the Free Land Holders Committee and began fencing off about 1,000 acres of public U.S. Forest Service land. [continue reading…]

• The Great Fractional Reserve/Freebanking Debate
• On Coinbase, Bitcoin, Fractional-Reserve Banking, and Irregular Deposits
• UK Proposal for Banking Reform: Fractional-Reserve Banking versus Deposits and Loans
• Fractional-Reserve Banking, Contracts of Deposit, and the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract
• Musings on Fractional-Reserve Banking in a Bitcoin Age; Physicalist Shock Absorber Metaphors
•  Michael S. Milano, “Privacy and Fungibility: The Forgotten Virtues of Sound Money,” Mises Wire (07/05/2025)

Talking with Jeff Tucker, he wondered how I ever got sucked into the Bitcoin Maximalism cult. He obviously sides with people like Aaron Day, Roger Ver, Steve Patterson, the ones who bemoan the “hijacking” of Bitcoin. See Roger Ver, with Steve Patterson, Hijacking Bitcoin: The Hidden History of BTC. Am I a maxi? Let’s think about it.

I did speak at the conference Jeff arranged in 2013: “The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender,” Crypto-Currency Conference: Bitcoin and the Future of Money (Atlanta, Oct. 5, 2013) (KOL085 podcast). I had recently lost a bet about bitcoin with Vijay Boyapati, as I recount in Comments on Block and Barnett on the Optimum Quantity of Money (see also Bitcoin Confiscation vs. Gold Confiscation). [continue reading…]

[From my Webnote series]

See other biographical pieces here.

Our views evolve over time. My core libertarian beliefs have not changed much in the last thirty years, as I note in the preface to Legal Foundations of a Free Society, except for a couple of areas that I explicitly call out, and for some matters of terminology and usage:

In one case I now disagree with something I originally wrote; I retained the original text and added an explanatory note (chapter 13, Part III.C). And in chapter 9 (Part III.C), I note that, regarding my earlier criticism of Rothbard’s argument for inalienability: “I now think it is possible that his approach is more compatible with my own than I originally realized.” But otherwise, I today still stand by most of the original content of those articles, in terms of substance. However, as noted several places in the text, I often now use terminology somewhat differently, e.g., the term state instead of government; rivalrous or “conflictable” instead of scarce; using the word property to refer to the relation between humans with respect to owned resources, instead of referring to the owned resource itself, and so on. “I have in some cases updated the text to my current, preferred usage, but not always since it would have been too drastic and tedious.

As for the change of mind indicated above, ch. 13, “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” as my Introductory Note to Part III.C explains, “In this section (Part III.C), I relied heavily on Bruno Leoni’s interpretation of Mises’s and Hayek’s views on the economic calculation problem and his related criticism of legislation by analogy to central economic planning. Subsequently, I gained a deeper understanding of the difference between Mises’s and Hayek’s approach to this issue, after Joseph Salerno initiated the “dehomogenization” debate.” ¹

But earlier in my development I did change my mind or modify my views on several issues, and in the ensuing years on some applications. Here are a few, in roughly chronological order:

• God. I initially was strongly Catholic, having been reared that way and attending 12 years of Catholic school, serving as an altar boy, and so on. When I was around 14 or 15 I started to develop serious doubts and soon became a die-hard atheist. I have not changed my view but I have become less militant and less hostile to religion, as I see now that it necessarily encodes and encapsulates much practical wisdom, and is preferable to the modern religion of statism and state worship.

Anarchy. Initially a fairly orthodox Objectivist (starting around 10th grade in high school) and thus minarchist and hostile to anarchy, by law school I was a full-fledged Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist (though I prefer the term anarcho-libertarian now). See Then and Now: From Randian Minarchist to Austro-Anarcho-Libertarian. ²

• Intellectual Property. Initially I assumed IP must be legitimate but was dissatisfied with arguments for it, when I decided to switch, as a young attorney, from oil & gas law to patent law in 1993 or so, I turned my attention to this issue and tried to come up with a better justification. The result was my complete change of mind and rejection of all forms of IP.
• Abortion. Initially pro-choice on Objectivist and libertarian grounds, I for a long time held the view that early-term fetuses don’t have rights, late-term fetuses probably do, and thus only late term abortion should be prohibited. My view has only changed a bit here: first, after becoming a parent, I started to feel more strongly that even early-term abortion is usually immoral, even if it’s not murder; and now, I believe it should not be outlawed even in the later term, at least not by the criminal law of any external legal system. (see KOL443)
• Rothbard’s Argument for Inalienability. I originally criticized Rothbard’s argument for inalienability. With a deeper understanding for the argument for self-ownership, based on the work of Hoppe and my own work, and thus for the argument for inalienability and against voluntary slavery contracts, I think Rothbard’s argument is basically correct, even if it’s incomplete and fairly sketchy, or that at least this is one way to construe it (even if his own view of contract and “implicit theft” and debtor’s prison is incompatible with his inalienability views). See LFFS, “A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability,” Part III.C.1; see also “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract.”
• Israel. I was always strongly Israel, having written an embarrassing Randian-style defense in college, ³ and a controversial article on LewRockwell arguing for moving Israel to Utah, ⁴, but arguments in light of the recent Israel-Gaza conflict, by Hans Hoppe, Saifedean Ammous, and others ⁵, and getting more educated on the history of Israel, have made me reevaluate some my views. At this point I feel like my heart is with Israel, but my head recognizes what Israel has done and is doing cannot be justified.
• Ukraine. I still despise the commies and think Russia is in violation of international law and evil, and I still do not believe NATO is an actual threat to Russia ⁶ and I believe Ukraine has the right to join NATO and the EU, but my view on this has been softened by the anti-war types and Hoppe’s comments. ⁷
• Immigration. Not sure exactly if I’ve changed my mind but my position is more nuanced now, influenced by Hoppe’s immigration views. See I’m Pro-Immigration and Pro-Open Borders; On “Unowned” State Property, Legal Positivism, Ownership vs. Possession, Immigration, Public Roads, and the Bum in the Library; “A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders.”
• Achieving Liberty/Activism/Economic Literacy. From a note to a friend:
  • A friend said: “I don’t think “completeness” is something a political theory could or even should ever aim for. That sounds like a religion.”My reply:This is why these people are postlibertarians and waystations: they had the wrong expectations ab initio. Of course it disappointed them if they think it is a life philosohy or somehting. One reason I’ll never be a postlibertarian is I always knew it was only one narrow slice of life and also I knew that we were unlikely to achive it. my main change of mind (Where I’ve Changed My Mind) is that I used to think the reason we have our non-free system is that not enough people are economically literate and if they would just read Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, we would have a more or less libertarian society. ⁸I no longer believe this is possible or realistic or that even if they did that it would make a difference. First, most people are not interested in our ideas. Nor will they read. Nor do they care. Nor do they have the mental capacity to focus on this or care about consistency. And anyway even if everyone read and understood Hazlitt and was totally noble–well things might be better, but you would still have socialism and statism. I think the reason we have the state is the prisoner’s dilemma type problem–the same reason a few guys can hold a crowd at bay with just a few guns–no one wants to be the first one to rush them. And in today’s democratic system everyone has an incentive to get what they can just like if there are many people sharing the tab at dinner it’s rational for each one to spend a lot since they only pay a fraction of the additional food and drinks they order.So I now thing liberty will come about only naturally, maybe after post-scarcity or post-religious-secular enlightenment, or after bitcoin or robots. Or maybe never–maybe the state (public criminality) will always be with us like private crime will always be with us. ⁹
  • Old view: “My personal view is that in the long run the only that that can work is economic literacy. Thus we need to educate people” Activism, Achieving a Free Society, and Writing for the Remnant. New view: “I used to think that. I’m more realist/pessimist now. Now I think the way we can see a libertarian world is to … wait. And hope. But there is hope. Bitcoin, AI, slow maturation of our ape species…”. And “I think liberty can be achieved but I think the way to do it is to: wait. (And maybe Bitcoin will hasten it.) We have to wait for teaching moments and for the capitalist mentality to be ingrained naturally into the zeitgeist. Just as the fall of communism in 1990 showed everyone that central planning doesn’t work and we need “capitalism,” I suspect that over time as the human race continues to improve, as technology improves, as we give up atavistic ideas like religion (which will take a while; we are still in a primitive era, despite our rocket ships), as the division of labor expands, as we become richer, as crime declines, as people become more powerful by technology and the state recedes into the background, the libertarian ethos will gradually take hold of mankind. It will be like The Golden Age of John C. Wright’s great sci-fi trilogy. … But how long it will take to get there, is anybody’s guess. As I said, bitcoin may get us there quicker. But I think there is little we can to do get there quicker. This frustrates the activist since they want to do something. I view my role in liberty as one of personal growth and understanding and a mission of helping to move theory forward—for its own sake. In the meantime I think people should just keep an open eye out for the true nature of society and the state now, and take whatever precautions they need to survive and even prosper in the face of atavism-socialism.”
    • see also KOL401 | Sazmining Twitter Space: Bitcoin & Property Rights: “the mentality is that the way to solve problems in society is to change people’s mentality by propagandizing them. And of course that’s ridiculous, right? But you can change people’s views, um, by reality. So for example, the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, um, was a big teaching moment in history. Now, it didn’t teach everyone everything, and they all still wanna cling to their, well, we can do socialism a better way, but it did, it was a big stinging rebuke to everyone, and they did learn something. And now the whole world sort of knows you just can’t totally centrally plan the economy if you want prosperity. I think everyone sort of knows that, and they wouldn’t have known that in 1982 or 1973. So, and that’s because the Soviet Union hadn’t collapsed yet. And so, so my hope is that something like that is true for Bitcoin and that, that if Bitcoin actually starts getting success, even though all the people doubted it, look, it’s just like Uber or whatever, like people never would’ve imagined Uber, Netflix, these kinds of business models.”
    • Whiteness and Libertarianism:My view is that liberty may be possible. We do not yet know. If it emerges it won’t be because we (white?) libertarians were running around promoting it, but because it works and over time more and more people came to understand this. For example until the USSR fell in 1991 many people could still argue socialism was superior to capitalism. But that was a teaching moment and now millions of people are aware that free markets and private property work better and are essential to human production and prosperity. They learned this from watching history not from reading Hazlitt.In my view the main hope for liberty is that because the primary source for wealth is the accumulation of technological knowledge, the human race can keep getting richer every generation. The richer we get the less excuse or need for aggression/crime, and the more people can afford to be “liberal” (cosmpolitan, toleratan, empathetic) and also to devote some time to the study of economics and poltiics. Also they will be witnessing in real time the benefits of capitalism, technology, freedom, information, knowledge, individualism, tolerance, cosmopolitanism–all little teaching moments that accumulate over time. Just as we see happening with bitcoin; more and more people will adopt it as its track record gets longer and they get comfortable with it. And so on. To my mind this is the only hope for liberty, but it also means that there is little we, as activists, can do to bring it about. All we can do is hope, and wait. Which also means that what we can do is recognize this fact and devote sufficient time and attention in our lives in a quasi-free society to trying to survive and flourish in this real world. That means not expecting activism to work, at least not any time soon; accepting reality as it is working to prosper in the face of the illiberal challenges we face.
    • Similar comments in Libertarian Answer Man: Does It Matter How Law is Made?; KOL241 | Dave Smith’s Part of the Problem Show: Libertarian Property Theory; KOL187 | Anarchast with Jeff Berwick Discussing IP, Anarcho-libertarianism, and Legislation vs. Private Law (2012); Bodrum Days and Nights: The Fifth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society: A Partial Report

1.  Knowledge vs. Calculation, Mises Blog (July 11, 2006) .[↩]
2. Nicholas Dykes, “The Facts of Reality: Logic and History in Objectivist Debates about Government,” J. Ayn Rand Stud. 7, no. 1 (Fall 2005): 79–140, pp. 132–133: “A devoted fan of Ayn Rand since 1963, I am sympathetic to those who uphold minarchy or limited government. For thirty years, I did the same. But when in 1992 enforced early retirement gave me the leisure to read more widely, and after a friend, the British libertarian Kevin McFarlane, suggested I should read Bruce Benson’s The Enterprise of Law, I suddenly felt one day like Keats’s Cortez, staring out over an unknown horizon with the ‘wild surmise’ that social life without government might be possible. In the years since, everything I have read has made that surmise seem more and more like the true facts of reality, “a state of affairs that is and works whether or not anybody recognises it” (Mises 1944, 113). … Sechrest (1999, 87) has noted psychological elements in the anarchy/minarchy debate. This seems eminently correct, for children are usually raised to revere their country’s history and its form of government. Thus most Britons are loyal to their monarchy and most Americans unquestioningly support the Uncle Sam they are accustomed to. As Nock ([1935] 1950, 44) observed wryly: “There appears to be a curious difficulty about exercising reflective thought upon the actual nature of an institution into which one was born and one’s ancestors were born.” It may be that this ‘inheritance factor’—unconscious, and therefore impervious to reason—has always been the greatest obstacle to the spread of ideas.” Citing Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy (New Haven: Yale University, 1944); Larry Sechrest, “Rand, anarchy, and taxes,” J. Aуn Rand Stud. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1999): 87–105; Nock, Our Enemy, The State. [↩]
3. Column: Israel: Victim of Bloodlust in Middle East?, LSU Daily Reveille, June 21, 1988. [↩]
4.  “New Israel: A Win-Win-Win Proposal,” LewRockwell.com (October 1, 2001). [↩]
5. Saifedean’s podcast; debate with Walter Block; debate with Yaron Brook; discussion with Jeremy Hammond; interview with Robert Breedlove; Hans-Hermann Hoppe, An Open Letter to Walter E. Block. [↩]
6. International Law, Libertarian Principles, and the Russia-Ukraine War. [↩]
7. “The War in the Ukraine in Libertarian Perspective,” LewRockwell.com (PFS 2023; Sept. 28, 2023). [↩]
8. I’ve said this many times in the past. E.g. Laugh at the State, Mock the Regime; “Faculty Spotlight Interview: Stephan Kinsella” (Mises.org, 2011); Argumentation Ethics, Estoppel, and Libertarian Rights: Transcript; KOL018 | “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society, Lecture 1: Libertarian Basics: Rights and Law” (Mises Academy, 2011); others here. [↩]
9. On Taxing Harvard: Ranting about Thuggocrats and Waystation/Post-libertarians [↩]

This is a followup to comments on KOL418 | Corporations, Limited Liability, and the Title Transfer Theory of Contract, with Jeff Barr: Part II.

For more on this, see Stephan Kinsella, “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract,” Papian Press Working Paper #1 (Sep. 7, 2024) and “A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability,” chap. 9 of Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston: Papinian Press, 2023).

Brian‘s comment on KOL418: [continue reading…]

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 443.

Related:

• Abortion Correspondence with Doris Gordon, Libertarians For Life (1996) (June 14, 2023)
• Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Libertarian Solution (Grok)
• Walter Block, “Does Trespassing Require Human Action? Rejoinder to Kinsella and Armoutidis an Evictionism,” MEST Journal (forthcoming 2025)

“Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach,” 2024 Annual Meeting, Property and Freedom Society, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 22, 2024). This was also podcast  at the Property and Freedom Podcast as PFP285. Below please find the Shownotes provided by Grok, my own notes from which the speech was read, the transcript (cleaned up by Grok), and an Article version of the speech prepared by Grok (here: Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Libertarian Solution (Grok)).

Related:

• “How We Come to Own Ourselves,” in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023), in an update noting: See Daniel J. Flynn, “Murray Rothbard’s Lost Letters on Ayn Rand,” J. Libertarian Stud. 29 (2) (2025): 35–50, p. 40: “He noted a split on the seemingly uncontroversial idea of making support of children compulsory for parents, which, despite Atlas Shrugged’s reputation as a kid-free zone, Rand endorsed.”
• Block, “Does Trespassing Require Human Action? Rejoinder to Kinsella and Armoutidis an Evictionism”

Grok shownotes:

Shownotes: KOL443 | Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach (PFS 2024)

In this thought-provoking talk from the 2024 Property and Freedom Society Annual Meeting, Stephan Kinsella tackles the contentious issue of abortion through a libertarian lens, acknowledging its complexity and the deep divisions it creates. He traces the historical pro-choice leanings of libertarians, particularly Objectivists like Ayn Rand, while noting the rise of pro-life sentiments within modern paleo-libertarian circles, exemplified by the 2022 Libertarian Party platform change led by the Mises Caucus. Kinsella critiques both secular and religious arguments, dismissing Doris Gordon’s Libertarians for Life stance as overly simplistic and finding Walter Block’s “evictionism” convoluted, as it frames the fetus as a trespasser despite most pregnancies resulting from voluntary acts. Reflecting on his own evolution from a staunch pro-choice Randian to a more nuanced perspective as a parent, Kinsella grounds his analysis in the libertarian principle that rights stem from reasoning capacity, a concept rooted in Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s discourse ethics.

Kinsella argues that the abortion debate is intractable due to irreconcilable religious, feminist, and philosophical differences, making state intervention problematic. He proposes a “radically decentralist” solution: until birth, the family unit, particularly the mother, should have jurisdiction over abortion decisions, free from external legal interference. This approach, inspired by Hoppe’s 2011 remarks in Romania, avoids intrusive policing—such as monitoring pregnancies for late-term abortions deemed murder—and respects the private nature of family matters. Kinsella suggests that positive obligations may arise from voluntarily conceiving a child, akin to rescuing someone you’ve endangered, but maintains that legal systems should defer to families until the child is born, when homicide laws apply. He references Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism to underscore that a born child owns its body, marking birth as a clear legal boundary.

This decentralist framework aligns with libertarian principles of minimizing state overreach and respecting individual autonomy, as Kinsella elaborates in his broader work, such as Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Papinian Press, 2023). The episode also points to related discussions, including Christos Armoutidis’ “Preargumentation Ethics and the Issue of Abortion” (J. Libertarian Stud., 2024) and Oscar Grau’s chapter in A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Papinian Press, 2024), for further exploration of libertarian perspectives on abortion. By advocating for family jurisdiction, Kinsella offers a pragmatic way to navigate this divisive issue, leaving listeners with a compelling case for decentralization in one of libertarianism’s most challenging debates.

***

Update: see Christos Armoutidis, “Preargumentation Ethics and the Issue of Abortion,” J. Libertarian Stud. 28, no.1 (2024): Abstract:

The issue of abortion—and, more broadly, the issue concerning the source of rights or, more precisely, when and why humans acquire or recognize rights—has long vexed libertarians. It’s a complex issue with numerous good-faith and reasonable arguments that lead to differing conclusions. This issue is usually brought up when the topic of abortion is discussed in libertarian circles. This article will attempt to show when and why humans get rights by advancing a theory inspired and implied by Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “argumentation ethics”; it will then endeavor to “resolve” and present the consistent libertarian stance on the abortion issue.

and Oscar Grau, “On Argumentation Ethics, Human Nature, and Law,” in A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, edited by Jörg Guido Hülsmann & Stephan Kinsella (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2024).

19th-century individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker initially concluded that no one should interfere to prevent neglect of the child, although they could still repress a positive invasion. However, Tucker, having reconsidered his opinion, resolved that parental cruelty is of non-invasive character and therefore is not to be prohibited. Tucker’s opinion is grounded on the fact that he viewed the child as the property of the mother while in the womb and until the time of their emancipation (at the age of being able to contract and provide for themselves) unless the mother had disposed of the fruit of her womb by contract. In the meantime, Tucker recognized the right of the mother to dispose of her property as she sees it fit. According to Tucker’s logic, “the outsider who uses force upon the child invades, not the child, but its mother, and may be rightfully punished for doing so”.^[12][13]

Panel discussion:

[continue reading…]

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (14.9MB)