[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)

A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe was published today, Sep. 21, 2024, at the 2024 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society, in Bodrum, Turkey. More information here.

Some photos from the ceremony announcing the book are below.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 442.

Related:

• “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract,”
• “A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability” and “Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith,” in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023)

This is a debate between me and Walter Block about voluntary slavery contracts, hosted by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project as part of his “Together Strong” debate series. (See previous episode KOL426)

Grok shownotes: [0:00–30:00] In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty podcast (KOL442), Stephan Kinsella debates Walter Block in the “Together Strong” series, hosted by Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity, focusing on the contentious issue of voluntary slavery contracts. Kinsella argues against their enforceability, asserting that self-ownership is inalienable due to the direct connection between an individual and their body, making such contracts invalid as they cannot transfer control over one’s will. He emphasizes that contracts transfer titles to external property, not obligations over one’s body, and that consent can be revoked, rendering slavery agreements unenforceable. Block defends voluntary slavery, arguing that if individuals can sell their labor or body parts, they should be able to contractually commit to servitude, viewing such agreements as extensions of libertarian freedom to contract.

Unedited transcript (from Youtube) below. [continue reading…]

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (63.6MB)

Related:

• biographical pieces on my publications page
• Alan D. Bergman, Adopting Liberty: The Stephan Kinsella Story (2025)
• Meeting Rothbard and Hoppe: John Randolph Club, 1994 (Oct. 16, 2023)

As I recounted in “How I Became a Libertarian,” in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023), ¹

I was fortunate to meet Murray Rothbard before he died, in October 1994 at the John Randolph Club meeting near Washington, D.C, where he autographed by copy of Man, Economy, and State: “To Stephan: For Man & Economy, and against the state –Best regards, Murray Rothbard.” ²

I had forgotten some of details of that trip but just came across a letter to a former law school classmate from 1996 which has some details about my first meeting with Rothbard, Hoppe, et al. Here is an edited excerpt: [continue reading…]

1. Meeting Rothbard and Hoppe: John Randolph Club, 1994 (Oct. 16, 2023). [↩]
2. I mention this also in The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory. [↩]

[Update: see various biographical pieces on my publications page, including Alan D. Bergman, Adopting Liberty: The Stephan Kinsella Story (2025).]

In the Preface to Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023 [LFFS]), which contains updated articles published over a nearly 30 year period from 1994 to 2023, I noted that

Although the chapters were all written separately and at different times over three decades, many of them build on (or anticipated) others. For example, in chapter 10, originally published 1998–99, I outlined a sketch of a view of contracts, inalienability, and so on (note 48), and wrote “Elaboration of these ideas will have to await a subsequent article.” I did so in 2003, in the article which became chapter 9. Thus, I was able to piece together several articles in a fairly systematic form since they either built on or anticipated each other and were written to be consistent with each other and all flowing from the same core principles and reasoning.

Thus, my book contains chapters that build and refer to each other even if they were written years apart. [continue reading…]

This is my Preface and Acknowledgments to Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023); see also Hoppe’s Foreword.

Preface: Legal Foundations of a Free Society

The issue of what property rights we have, or should have, what laws are just and proper, has long confronted mankind, and continues to be the subject of debate today. This book seeks to address these issues, with an approach that keeps in mind the nature and reality of human life—that we are purposeful human actors living in a world of scarcity and facing the possibility of interpersonal conflict—and the purpose of law and property norms: to enable us to live together, in society, peacefully and cooperatively. The goal is to vindicate the private law as developed in the decentralized systems of the Roman and common law, with an emphasis on consistency, principle, and the inviolable rights of the individual. In short, to argue for a private law system informed by libertarian principles. [continue reading…]

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 441.

This is Episode 238 of The Bitcoin Standard Podcast, with Dr. Saifedean Ammous, author of The Bitcoin Standard. From his shownotes:

Legal Scholar Stephan Kinsella joins to discuss his new book, Legal Foundations of a Free Society, in which he discusses libertarianism as a system for determining legitimate property rights, why property rights are important, and the problem with intellectual property rights..

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (114.4MB)

A tweet alerted me to an alleged Portuguese translation of one of my articles, “Ética Argumentativa: Algumas Notas Breves Sobre o Conceito.”

Ética Argumentativa: Algumas Notas Breves Sobre o Conceito

I asked what this was a translation of and they sent me the below to an old “Mises Wire” piece allegedly authored by me. However I have never seen this, I did not write it, and it is oddly worded, as if it was written by a Russian bot and/or written in a foreign language and then auto-translated. I have no idea how this got posted at Mises.org under my name, but it’s not mine.

Update: It appears now it was written by Juan Carpio, and somehow my name got attached to it by mistake.
[continue reading…]

Below is the first second third draft of a working paper published under the Papinian Press Working Papers series. I expect a version of this to be published next year in David Howden, ed., Palgrave Handbook of Misesian Austrian Economics (Palgrave, forthcoming 2025), as part of the Palgrave Studies in Austrian Economics Book series. The working paper text is below and the PDFs of three drafts 1.8, 1.11, and 1.13. As noted below, “A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability,” chap. 9 of Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston: Papinian Press, 2023), contains a more detailed presentation of some of the issues discussed here, although this paper includes additional arguments not explicitly made there.

Update: See The Title-Transfer Contract Theory—Illustrated.

(BTW I was asked to use the inline-citation format for references for this piece, instead of my preferred modified-Chicago/footnotes format, and I think the cluttered way references look in-line here is an illustration of why I despise this format.)

[continue reading…]