by Stephan Kinsella
on October 3, 2025
I received an email from one Jared Lewis, attaching his draft paper “Philosophical and Ethical Underpinnings of Tautological Natural Rights” (July 8, 2025). He asked me for my comments his argument, about natural rights theory and the use of thresholds or scalar attributes (e.g., intelligence), build on the Rothbardian view that rights must be grounded in clear, non-arbitrary principles; “whether this commitment rules out any ethical system that bases rights on gradable traits—whether in definition or implementation.”
My comment: “since you asked nicely and professionally unlike so many clueless libertarians, sure. But if it’s too much to take in perhaps we could chat via zoom. Send it on.”
He sent it. As I was in a hurry, I ran it through Grok, which I used to write a quick email reply. I then Grok for its review of my email to Lewis. Below is my letter to Lewis, plus both Grok analysis. Enjoy. (I will not append his paper here as it is a draft and he did not (yet) consent to my posting it.) [continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on October 3, 2025
Allen Gindler, “Refining the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP): A Formal Approach to Bystander Intervention” (draft; 2025).
Abstract:
This paper addresses a critical ambiguity in the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), a cornerstone of libertarian philosophy that prohibits initiating force against others. While effectively guiding two-party interactions, the NAP lacks clarity regarding third-party bystander intervention. Utilizing formal logic and set theory, this study identifies a logical NULL state inherent in traditional NAP formulations, which leaves bystander actions undefined. To resolve this, the paper introduces a modified NAP (MNAP), explicitly permitting voluntary, consent-based bystander intervention. The proposed refinement enhances the practical applicability of the NAP in complex multi-agent scenarios, offering libertarian societies a coherent framework for ethically and legally addressing immediate situations of aggression through consensual collective action.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on October 2, 2025
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on September 30, 2025
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on September 30, 2025
Dear Mr. Kinsella,
I am [], greets again. I hope this message finds you well. Sorry to bother you, but I would like to ask you a question regarding “use-based property” and argumentation ethics.
We know that capitalists own means of production, often through inheritance. However, if we cannot determine historically who first acquired these means, or whether the property was originally obtained through theft, it is usually justified under the principle of homesteading. My question is: if we cannot provide ontological evidence for the ownership of scarce resources, and if a resource is not in active use, would such ownership be illegitimate? [continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on September 30, 2025
Related
Re discussions with @Fhoer and Hoppe re Usury from an OrdoNaturalist Perspective A Hoppean Critique of Contractually Invalidity Interest. Abstract:
This article proposes a critique of the practice of usury — understood as the imposition of contractually invalid interest — from an OrdoNaturalist approach inspired by Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. Unlike utilitarian, Marxist, and religious views, which treat usury as acceptable if useful or condemnable if exploitative, it is argued here that usury is null ab initio because it violates the principles of self-ownership and contractual reciprocity. The text distinguishes legitimate loans, based on mutual risk and limited guarantees, from usurious loans, characterized by unlimited liability, perpetual debt, and the alienation of the debtor’s autonomy. It concludes that usury is incompatible with natural order and constitutes a disguised form of economic slavery.
The piece argues that certain debt arrangements are invalid ab initio because they violate self-ownership and reciprocity.
An edited exchange: [continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on September 29, 2025
Re Michael Oakeshott, On Human Conduct (1991)
ChatGPT query:
summarize and analyze the attached book by Oakeshott. Provide a concise overview followed by a chapter by chapter summary. Consult the work of Hans-Hermann hoppe, Stephan Kinsella, and Murray Rothbard, on the internet and in the attached documents. Is Oakeshott compatible with the libertarian views of Kinsella and Hoppe and Rothbard? If not, explain where they would differ or disagree with Oakeshott’s approach and parts Hoppe might agree with. What part would libertarians influenced by Hoppe, Rothbard, and Kinsella most agree with or profit from?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on September 29, 2025
A. J. Carlyle, A History of Mediæval Political Theory in the West, Vol. I: A History of Political Theory From the Roman Lawyers of the Second Century to the Political Writers of the Ninth (1903; archive; kindle)
Grok summary:
Concise Overview of the Book
“A History of Medieval Political Theory in the West, Volume I: The Second Century to the Ninth” by A.J. Carlyle (published 1903) argues for the continuity of political thought from ancient to modern times, challenging the notion of a sharp break after the fall of ancient civilizations. Carlyle posits that medieval political theory evolved from Roman philosophical and legal traditions, integrated with Christian ideas and Teutonic customs, rather than emerging abruptly in the Renaissance. Drawing on sources like Cicero, Seneca, Roman jurists (e.g., from Justinian’s Digest and Institutes), the New Testament, Church Fathers (e.g., Augustine, Ambrose, Isidore), and ninth-century Frankish writers, the book examines key concepts: natural law as the foundation of justice; human equality and its tension with institutions like slavery and coercive government; the origins of property and authority; the divine basis of rulership balanced by justice; and the evolving relationship between church and state. Structured in four parts—introduction via Cicero and Seneca, Roman legal theory, New Testament and patristic ideas, and ninth-century developments—Carlyle emphasizes that these ideas, rooted in Stoic philosophy and Christian theology, laid the groundwork for later medieval thought. Justice is central to legitimate governance, and natural equality counters hierarchical institutions. Acknowledging gaps (e.g., post-Aristotelian Greek philosophy), the work highlights how medieval theory adapted ancient principles, influencing liberty, consent, and ecclesiastical independence. This volume sets the stage for later ones covering up to the 17th century, underscoring the organic development of political ideas amid empire, church, and barbarian influences. [continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on September 29, 2025
Thoughtful new article, Juan I. Núñez, “Flagpole Libertarianism: A Refutation of the Suicide Pact,” Libertarian Alliance [UK] Blog (Sep. 29, 2025):
The Enemy Within
Every libertarian would refuse to steal a ladder to save their mom from a burning building, and refuse to steal a penny to stop aliens from destroying the world, because every libertarian is a libertarian.
The moment this statement appeared on my X feed, I wasn’t so much at a loss for words as I was struck by a familiar, wearying conclusion: this person believes libertarianism to be a death cult. And sadly, they are not alone. It would seem that for a growing number of people, libertarian ethics have been flattened into a binary matter, where a strict, Spartan adherence is demanded of a “true” libertarian, even if the price is one’s own life. [continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on September 28, 2025
Ernst Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (1957). Grok summary:
Overview and Summary of the Book and Its Arguments
Ernst H. Kantorowicz’s The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (1957) is a seminal exploration of how medieval political thought conceptualized the ruler as possessing dual natures: a “body natural” that is mortal, fallible, and subject to human frailties, and a “body politic” that is immortal, infallible, and eternal, ensuring the continuity of sovereignty beyond the individual’s lifespan. Drawing from legal, theological, and philosophical sources, Kantorowicz argues that this “mystic fiction” emerged as a mechanism to sustain political order in pre-modern societies lacking strong bureaucratic institutions. The book traces the idea’s genealogy from Tudor England backward to late antiquity, emphasizing its roots in Christian theology—particularly the dual nature of Christ (human and divine)—and its adaptation through Roman and canon law, where concepts like the eternal dignity of office (dignitas) and the mystical body of the Church (corpus mysticum) were secularized to apply to kingship and the state. This duality, Kantorowicz posits, resolved practical issues like succession, inalienability of crown lands, and the perpetuity of royal authority, while reflecting broader tensions between sacral and rational governance. [continue reading…]
{ }
Recent Comments