by Stephan Kinsella
on July 23, 2025
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on July 21, 2025
I just came across the obituary (2) for John Murray Clearwater (Feb. 8, 1966 to March 2, 2022). Text below. I was unaware he had passed.
I knew John when he and I were students at King’s College London 1991–92; we both lived in King’s College Hall in Camberwell. At the time, he went by the name John Strangelove and was a bit mysterious. As I recall, he was antiwar and something of a leftist, and so we would argue about politics a bit. I remember my friend Paul Comeaux and I teasing him at one point that Canada’s military had more generals than tanks. At one point, for some reason, he shaved off one side of his mustache and the other side of his beard. He only told me later, after my repeated inquiries, that his real name was Clearwater, not Strangelove. [continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on July 21, 2025
[From my Webnote series]
“Although it is usual to speak of money as a measure of value and prices, the notion is entirely fallacious. So long as the subjective theory of value is accepted, this question of measurement cannot arise.” Ludwig von Mises, “On the Measurement of Value,” in The Theory of Money and Credit (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953), I.2.1 [continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on July 20, 2025
Related:
- The UN, International Law, and Nuclear Weapons;
- Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
- Rosalyn Higgins, “Dissenting Opinion of Judge Higgins, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I), p. 583,” in Higgins, Themes and Theories, ch. 9.8, p. 1129
- International Law, Libertarian Principles, and the Russia-Ukraine War;
- KOL250 | International Law Through a Libertarian Lens (PFS 2018)
- Book Review of Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (1994), Reason Papers No. 20 (Fall 1995): 147–153
- The Universal Principles of Liberty (Aug. 14, 2025).
Update: From Grok:
The libertarian position, encapsulated in the principle that “what is not prohibited is permitted,” aligns with the Lotus principle and the concept of a closing rule in international law, suggesting that in the absence of an explicit legal prohibition, an act—such as the threat or use of nuclear weapons—should be considered permissible. However, this perspective is insufficient to resolve the issue in the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, as argued in the provided abstract and reflected in the Wikipedia entry on the case. The ICJ’s non liquet—its inability to definitively rule on the legality of nuclear weapons in extreme self-defense scenarios—reveals the limitations of the libertarian approach, as international law may be indifferent to certain conduct, leaving genuine gaps that neither permit nor prohibit. Below, I reframe the previous summary to incorporate why the libertarian position is inadequate, while tying in the roles of Rosalyn Higgins and the Lauterpacht-Stone debate.
The ICJ’s 1996 Advisory Opinion, as detailed in the Wikipedia entry, concluded with a non liquet in paragraph 105(2)E, stating that the Court could not definitively determine the legality of nuclear weapons in extreme self-defense due to ambiguities in international law and insufficient facts. The libertarian position, which mirrors the closing rule’s assumption that silence equals permission, would interpret this as implicit legality, yet the abstract argues this is flawed. International law’s decentralized nature allows for indifference, where no clear rule exists, as seen in the nuclear weapons case where competing principles (e.g., humanitarian law vs. self-defense) created ambiguity. The libertarian view oversimplifies this complexity, failing to account for situations where the law neither permits nor prohibits, as Stone argued in his debate with Lauterpacht, who favored a complete legal system. Rosalyn Higgins, an ICJ judge (per her Wikipedia biography), likely addressed this in her dissenting opinion, using her expertise to critique the non liquet or propose a more nuanced application of legal norms, highlighting the inadequacy of a binary libertarian framework in resolving such intricate issues.
In On the Obligation to Negotiate, Compromise, and Arbitrate, I note that the primary purpose of property rules is to make it possible for fellow humans to avoid conflict, so that they can live amongst each other, trade, specialize, cooperate, and so on. Thus, it makes sense to say that people have an obligation to respect others’ rights, and laws implementing or based on these rights, if and insofar as one values the norms or grundnorms that underlie these laws and rules. In other words, when we are considering property rights and laws, and the administration of justice, again we must be informed by the very purpose of property rights: to reduce conflict in order to make peace, trade, and cooperation possible. [continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on July 18, 2025
Related:
- The Superiority of the Roman Law: Scarcity, Property, Locke and Libertarianism
- “Corpore Corpori”: “To the body”: Torts in the Roman Law
- Examples of Libertarian Law vs. Louisiana vs. French vs. Common Law: Consideration and Formalities
- Preface and Acknowledgments to Legal Foundations of a Free Society
- KOL456 | Haman Nature Hn 109: Philosophy, Rights, Libertarian and Legal Careers
- Reading Suggestions for Prospective/New Law Students (Roman/Civil law focus)
- On the Non Liquet in Libertarian Theory and Armchair Theorizing
- Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society, ” in Legal Foundations of a Free Society [LFFS]
- PFP244 | Alessandro Fusillo, “Roman Law Reconsidered” (PFS 2022)
- “Episode Four: Surf’s Up: Roman Law and Beach Houses” (Ricochet, Apple), The Libertarian, with Richard Epstein (Aug. 21, 2025)
I’ve always admired libertarian legal scholar Richard Epstein‘s work, even if I disagree with much in his approach—primarily his minarchism (I’m an anarchist libertarian; he seems to be some kind of minarchist), his intellectual property views (I’m anti-, he’s pro-), and his utilitarian approach (I’m Austrian and have a principled approach; he is Chicago and utilitarian). [continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on July 15, 2025
I was talking with some friends lately about this Slate article “Burning Love“, subtitled “When I found out my wife was cheating, a certain backyard plant helped me take revenge.” I was mocking how limp-wristed satchel-wearing lefties take revenge; plus it seemed to me like a crime. But I also criticized this couple for being married students. As I wrote my friends, “I mean why are they married while students, pretending to be adults in the first place?” [continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on July 14, 2025
I’ve always been against defamation law (libel, slander, etc.). I assumed it was the plumbline libertarian position, even though many libertarians and most Objectivists seem to favor reputation rights. As I wrote in “Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property”: [continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on July 14, 2025
(I like Peter; this is just in fun! See our podcast episode, where he’s wrong on IP and Bitcoin. KOL316 | Discussion with Peter Schiff about Patent, Copyright, and Bitcoin.)
My Grok prompt: [continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on July 13, 2025
Hoppe’s Social Theory: An Executive Summary (Grok and ChatGPT):
I asked Grok4 (SuperGrok) and ChatGPT to provide executive summaries of Hoppe’s thought. Results below; I have not reviewed these.
My prompt:
Take these documents by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and provide an organized executive summary of Hoppe’s social thought: his economics and economic theory, his views on rights and libertarianism, democracy, immigration, and other issues. Organize it systematically, and include detailed links, references, footnotes/endnotes, and so on. Entitle this Hoppe’s Social Theory: An Executive Summary. Make this as detailed and comprehensive as possible and as long as necessary.
Read more>>
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on July 13, 2025
I spent about 30 years writing the material that became Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023). I had plans to write this book for over 15 years but kept dithering, stopping and starting, and also waiting to write a few key chapters. Even so, I could have finished it at least 7 years ago. [continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on July 13, 2025
As noted in Libertarianism: A Treatise: AI Assisted Draft:
I spent about 30 years writing the material that became Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023). I had plans to write this book for over 15 years but kept dithering, stopping and starting, and also waiting to write a few key chapters. Even so, I could have finished it at least 7 years ago. [continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on July 12, 2025
[From my Webnote series]
From a tweet:
Another reason why “voluntary” and tax-free minarchism is a chimera.
[continue reading…]
{ }
Recent Comments