StephanKinsella.com

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…]

Econ Journal Watch, Volume 22, Issue 2, September 2025:

Isaiah Berlin on Karl Marx: An earlier exchange (1, 2, 3, 4) touched upon whether Karl Marx’s having become a big deal was adventitious or destined. Two selections from Isaiah Berlin are here republished, by permission, to suggest that it was rather destined: (1) a selection from Berlin’s book Karl Marx; (2) “Marxism and the International in the Nineteenth Century”. Daniel Klein provides a Foreword.

[continue reading…]

Oliver Janich, The Order of Freedom: The Only Principle That Can Save the World (2020). Description:

To solve a problem, one must recognize the true cause of it. The true cause of social and political problems is that the conflict resolver must not be part of the conflict. This cannot work because the state is the ultimate judge in all conflicts, including those that it is involved in.This book’s thesis, which is new in libertarian theory, is that property rights and the realization of the non-aggression principle are merely the consequence of respecting the principle of the neutral judge. After describing this logically, the author presents a natural legal system that functions without a state. The consequence: wars are a thing of the past, the power of influential groups, both clandestine and publicly known, is reduced to zero, the mafia and the deep state cease to exist. Crime rates fall dramatically, prosperity increases and social safeguards improve significantly.Oliver Janich’s best-selling books have been praised by leading scholars like Hans-Herman Hoppe, Thorsten Polleit, Jörg Guido Hülsmann and celebrities like the singer Xavier Naidoo, Golden Globe winner Christine Kaufmann and political comedian and actress Lisa Fitz. Janich is one of the leading journalists in social media with videos that have been viewed over 40 million times. As an individual, he has the largest following on Telegram worldwide.

Grok analysis: [continue reading…]

X:

Esteemed Mr. Kinsella,

I originally intended to pose this question during one of your livestreams with a donation, but I noticed that you unfortunately do not take questions in that format.

I am a libertarian, and I am currently striving to study our theory more deeply. Recently, I had the pleasure of reading your chapter “A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability.” I found your title-transfer theory of contract especially compelling. [continue reading…]

Dear Stephan,

Sorry to bother you again; I know you are busy with the upcoming PFS event and likely have no time to be answering questions all the time, so feel free to backlog this for a later date or just refer me to any previously-written sources if you deem it necessary. [continue reading…]

Related:

• The problem of particularistic ethics or, why everyone really has to admit the validity of the universalizability principle
• Chapter 5: A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights
• Chapter 6: Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights
• Chapter 7: Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan
• Hans Hermann Hoppe, “On The Ethics of Argumentation” (PFS 2016)
• The A priori of Argumention, video introduction by Hoppe
• Lecture 3 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “The Social Theory of Hoppe” (slides here)
• Lecture 2 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society” (slides here)
• my “Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights,” in The Dialectics of Liberty (Lexington Books, 2019)
• Kinsella, “Explaining Argumentation Ethics and Universalizability Concisely to a Facebook Friend” (March 1, 2019)
• ——, The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory, StephanKinsella.com (March 22, 2016)
• ——, Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics and Its Critics, StephanKinsella.com (Aug. 11, 2015)
• ——, The problem of particularistic ethics or, why everyone really has to admit the validity of the universalizability principle (Nov. 10, 2011)
• Other Argumentation ethics posts

Dear Mr. Kinsella,

My name is [], I’m [] years old and live in Türkiye. I’m reading libertarian philosophy and Austrian economics, and I also came across your writings on argumentation ethics; I found them very informative. [continue reading…]

Related:

• Libertarian Answer Man: Eminent Domain and Ownership of State Monetary Payments
• On “Unowned” State Property, Legal Positivism, Ownership vs. Possession, Immigration, Public Roads, and the Bum in the Library
• Property Title Records and Insurance in a Free Society
• Justice and Property Rights: Rothbard on Scarcity, Property, Contracts…

Dear Dr. Hoppe, and Stephan:

I just finished having a debate with someone over the idea that receiving State welfare is aggression. I defended the stance that it is not inherently aggression (for the aggression is committed by the State when it taxes people, not by the welfare recipient), while he defended the idea that it is aggression. His argument was that when one receives money from the State, that money has a legitimate owner, and that at the very least one cannot receive more from the State than one has paid to it. [continue reading…]

[From my Webnote series]

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)

[continue reading…]

Yet another entry to be added to the list of libertarian movements and projects (Libertarian Nation and Related Projects): The Maksima Declaration:

Maksima is an inspiration community that is building a political, ideological and spiritual movement based on The Maksima Declaration.

Maksima will eventually launch a main project, in addition to four sub-projects. The name of the main project is The Progenitor Temple. The four sub-projects are The Real Jesus, War on Dullards, Free Brothels, and War on Levelers. Each project serves a specific purpose.

[continue reading…]

Related:

• Abortion Correspondence with Doris Gordon, Libertarians For Life (1996) (June 14, 2023)
• KOL443 | Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach (PFS 2024) (Sept. 22, 2024)
• 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): Abstract: “Libertarian scholars Kinsella and Armoutidis criticize the libertarian theory of evictionism. This is a principled compromise between the pro-life and the pro-choice positions. Its conclusion overlaps with the former in the last trimester of pregnancy and with the latter in the first two trimesters. That is, the pregnant mother may expel the fetus from her body whenever she wishes but may not ever kill this preborn baby. This theory is predicated upon the notion that the unwanted fetus is a trespasser; an innocent one, to be sure. Thus, he may be expelled from her body, her private property, but not treated as a criminal, since he is innocent of any crime. Evictionism stands or falls on this one claim. If the fetus is not a trespasser, this solution to the abortion controversy is a failure. Kinsella (2023) and Armoutidis (2024) maintain, to the contrary, that trespassing is a human action, and that the fertilized egg, the beginning of human life, is capable of nothing such thing. This essay aims to refute their position.”

Walter Block sent me a draft article “Does Trespassing Require Human Action? Rejoinder to Kinsella and Armoutidis an Evictionism,” MEST Journal (forthcoming 2025) and “invited” me to respond, whatever that means (I guess it means: “please change your priorities to suit my goals and spend your time writing this the article I want you to write instead of whatever article you were planning on writing”), presumably in aid of his stated goal of publishing 1000 peer reviewed or law review articles. ¹ I assume he counts “MEST Journal,” whatever that is, as peer reviewed even though it seems unlikely it is actually refereed (he has four articles in 2025 alone in that journal). ² I know from personal experience editing Libertarian Papers for ten years and from other publishing and peer reviewing experience how difficult and time-consuming it is. There is no way MEST Journal publishes this many papers and actually has them peer reviewed. But no matter. [continue reading…]

1. Numerous personal emails; Stephan Kinsella, “A Tour Through Walter Block’s Oeuvre” (May 9, 2024): text at n.3. [↩]
2. E.g., from Vol 13, No 1 (2025): REJOINDER TO RECTENWALD ON SUPPOSED ISRAELI WAR CRIMES and REJOINDER TO RECTENWALD ON SUPPOSED ISRAELI WAR CRIMES; from Vol 13, No 2 (2025): REJOINDER TO JOFFE ON THE COMPATIBILITY OF LIBERTARIANISM AND ZIONISM and REJOINDER TO ORWELLIAN LIBERTARIANISM: GORDON AND NJOYA’S TOPSY-TURVY WORLD OF TWILIGHT ZONE LIBERTARIANISM. [↩]

My podcast consumption has varied over the years. Of late, here are the main ones I listen to when I find time—driving, walking, falling to sleep (some are only on youtube and do not appear to have a podcast feed or home, despite being referred to as a podcast). I listen to many others; these are the main ones in my current rotation.

• Tom Woods Show — still the best and premier libertarian podcast
• Haman Nature — Adam Haman; check out his crossover episodes with Bob Murphy
• All-In Podcast — annoying mainstream techbros (Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks, and David Friedberg) ¹ but I can’t help listening
• The Libertarian with Richard Epstein
• Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke
• FedSoc Forums (Apple; youtube)
• ScotusCast (Apple; youtube)
• The Bitcoin Standard Podcast with Saifedean Ammous
• HeteroDox with Nina Paley and Corinna Cohn
• The Bob Murphy Show, Human Action Podcast
• The Rational Egoist, with Michael Liebowitz, Objectivist and ex-con
• Political Gabfest (Slate)
• Culture Gabfest (Slate)
• The Ramsey Show Highlights — love this show’s perspective and advice
• The Property and Freedom Podcast, which I run
• The Soho Forum Debates (Reason; youtube)
• Honestly (Bary Weiss; Youtube)

I am sure I’m missing several; I may update this list from time to time.

1. Chamath Palihapitiya, IP and “Knowledge in Buckets” Confusion. [↩]