StephanKinsella.com

A little biography of mine was just completed: Alan D. Bergman, Adopting Liberty: The Stephan Kinsella Story (2025) (pdf; epub). I’m not going to offer paper copies for purchase but the PDF and epub files are online for those interested. Jeff Tucker just tweeted it to his large following so I suppose I might as well blog it here. This was prepared for family and close friends; I was on the fence about posting this, for fear of appearing self-indulgent or narcissistic, but I really don’t care what people think and I figured some people might find it of interest. I know at least one guy is 🙂

[From my Webnote series]

On why I write, why I fight, the Remnant, and the problem with libertarian activism and “waystation libertarians.”

The Irrelevance of the Impossibility of Anarcho-Libertarianism

Where are the best pracitical suggestions along those lines – if any of you know and are willing to share?

My personal view is that in the long run the only that that can work is economic literacy. Thus we need to educate people; and one way to do it is to support the Mises Institute, and to keep spreading a consistent, principled message of liberty. We can keep learning, both to improve ourselves and to improve our ability to persuade. And by improving ourselves we help present “one improved unit” to society, thus helping to win over people to our other views by the power of attraction.

I would recommend not deluding oneself that we can “win” once and for all; or that winning is all that matters. That way lies the perils of self-delusion, compromise, despair, disengagement, and activism (see my The Trouble with Libertarian Activism). [continue reading…]

[From my Webnote series]

Regarding various new or increased or changed tariffs being proposed by Trump: of course free trade is good and the US should unilaterally abolish tariffs. ¹ (I seem to recall other arguments for unilateral free trade—perhaps by Mises, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Friedman—but cannot find them; if anyone recalls any of these please notify me.)

The uncertainty faced by businesses and actors in the US as a result of these changes is simply one consequence of the state having the very power to legislate. [continue reading…]

1. On Trump’s recent tariffs, see Gigi Foster et al., Has Team Trump Blinked?. On unilateral free trade, see Ron Paul, “Free Trade and Protectionism,” in Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., ed., The Free Market Reader (“Even if other countries maintain tariffs or subsidies, we would be helped, not hurt, by unilaterally ending ours.”); Laurence M. Vance, Why Libertarians Loathe Tariffs; Louis Rouanet, The Case for Unilateral Free Trade; Patrick Barron Unilateral Free Trade; Ryan McMaken, We Need Unilateral Free Trade with Post-Brexit Britain; Ryan McMaken, It’s Time for Unilateral Free Trade with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK; Louis Rouanet, Britain Should Embrace Unilateral Free Trade Right Now; Patrick Barron, Two Common Objections to Unilateral Free Trade. But see Jeffrey Tucker, “Does the Trade Deficit Matter?“; idem, The Discrediting of Free Trade. [↩]

[From my Webnote series]

As noted in this Grok conversation, the US Supreme Court assumed the power to review legislation for constitutionality in Marbury vs. Madison—the power of judicial review. In this case, the Court was asked to issue a writ to place Marbury on a Court. The Court admitted he should be placed here but that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which seemed to give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue such writs, was unconstitutional since it unconstitutionally expanded the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution specified. In other words, the Court appeared to decline a power but was only able to decline this power by assuming the power to review federal laws for constitutionality and declare them unconstitutional if found wanting. [continue reading…]

By the late, great Petr Beckmann. On Amazon, and online here. “A collection of subversive jokes from the Soviet Union.”

[From my Webnote series]

See also:

• Rand’s Immortal Robot and “Values”
• Grok conversation.

[continue reading…]

Interesting article on Mises Wire: “A Tale of Two Legal Systems: Common Law and Statutory Laws,” by Ugo Stornaiolo S.:

It was the best of the laws, it was the worst of the laws, it was built on freedom, it was built on power, it was the spontaneous order of organic social institutions, it was the deliberate order of ideology and coercion, it was a stream of jurisprudence guiding us to justice, it was a tangle of statutes pushing us to restriction.

In short, law, either jurisprudence or legislation, can only be understood by comparison, and adapting the introduction of A Tale of Two Cities, we see two systems, common and civil law, and gaps in freedom between them.

Read more>>

He quotes my article “Legislation and Law in a Free Society.” See also the longer version, “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023); and related comments from Hoppe, e.g. at n.152 of this chapter.

[From my Webnote series]

I recently had conversation with some fellow libertarians about how to interpret the governing rules of a given organization, and whether members of the group who receive information submitted to them are free to release this information publicly. I pointed out that the organization’s Bylaws don’t say we cannot release this information, to which someone else said it doesn’t say we can, either. I responded that the general rule is that we don’t live by permission; all that is not forbidden is permitted. In response, someone argued that this reasoning sounds like the excuse the state uses, for example when the US Government argues that its power is basically plenary, despite the enumerated powers structure of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment, because of the interstate commerce clause in effect granting it broad legislative powers—an interpretation we libertarians usually criticize and reject. [continue reading…]

Update: for more on the conference, see My Failed Libertarian Speaking Hiatus; Memories of Mises Institute and Other Events, 1988–20192025.

***

I’m attending what looks to be a fascinating legal conference next week, “The Louisiana Civil Code of 1825: Content, Influences and Languages; Past and Future,” LSU Law Center, March 20–21, 2025. ¹ Somewhat to my surprise, I’m looking forward to it. Let me splain. (Note: I realize this post may come across as narcissistic or self-absorbed to some; I don’t care; in this case, it’s not for you. Some people are interested in this, others not. And one purpose of my blogging like this is to create posts that in effect can serve as searchable notes or “footnotes” for later use. ² So avert thine eyes if you don’t like it…) [continue reading…]

1. Steve Sanoski, “LSU Law hosting international legal conference to celebrate the Bicentennial of Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 on March 20-21,” LSU Law (March 11, 2025); program. [↩]
2. Blog Posts as Footnotes–Webnotes; Grok conversation. [↩]

I just came across some correspondence with Bryan Garner from 1993, who is by now a well known expert on legal writing, style, and related matters. (His books include his first book, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, and many others, such as Garner’s Modern English Usage, Black’s Law Dictionary, The Elements of Legal Style, etc.) I met Bryan when he conducted a legal writing seminar for new lawyers in my firm, Jackson Walker, in 1992, shortly after he founded is firm Lawprose. I corresponded with him a bit, in part about my upcoming article “A Civil Law to Common Law Dictionary,” La. L. Rev. 54 (1994), which I later turned into a book, Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary (2011).

When we met, I believe we discussed how there is redundancy in language, e.g., how you write on a check “$100” and “One hundred and no/100 dollars.” Some criticize this, but there is a reason for this redundancy. In my letter I noted: [continue reading…]

Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) has been translated into Portuguese as Fundamentos Legais de uma Sociedade Livre (forthcoming 2025), by Rick Theu and VAP of the Instituto Hoppe (Brasil). The book has been divided into two voluments: Vol. 1 (Parts I–III; pdf) and Vol. 2 (Parts IV–VI; pdf).

According to the publisher (and as also noted in the Publishers note below), “there is still some revision to be done (some of the footnotes need to be corrected—some are referencing the wrong pages, some could reference the corresponding Portuguese edition of the works that have already been translated, etc.).” I will post updated files when received. I append below Hoppe’s Foreword and my Preface.

The Publisher’s note is included below. I wish to make one correction. They write “The work of translation is always thankless.” Not true: they have my gratitude and appreciation. ¹ It is always a pleasure to encounter others with a passion to help spread the ideas of liberty. [continue reading…]

1. I am reminded of my correspondence with the late, great Dr. Petr Beckmann in the 1990s (see various posts here). I had proposed writing a treatment of some of his ideas on nuclear power and asked his permission; he replied that I had not only his permission but his gratitude. Also, as I pointed out to the translators here: my comment above was more jocular—just an excuse to express gratitude. As I pointed out to him, in my 1994 review of Hoppe, jokingly wrote this: “18. Hoppe dedicates the volume to Murray N. Rothbard, stating that ‘words cannot express my personal gratitude.’ Economics and Ethics xi. Of course (I point out in jest), by using words to express his personal gratitude Hoppe contradicts himself by stating that words cannot express his gratitude.” I was being cheeky. I removed this comment from the version in my book … ch. 22 of Legal Foundations of a Free Society. [↩]