“Crusoe owns nothing on his island, as there is no legal order. Does this include his body?
He can control and use his body, but he doesn’t own it. Ownership is a legal relationship between an actor and a resource, that is recognized and respected by others in society. If there is no society or legal system, there are no norms or rules or rights.
Also: Does a slave, in a legal order that supports slavery, no longer own his body?
The master is the legal owner, but the slave is the natural or rightful owner. We have to distinguish possession or control, from ownership. And we have to distinguish positive law from just law. As Mises wrote: [continue reading…]
Lift Talks #1 —Telluride March 2021 — With Kinsella & Sammeroff.
Two libertarian blokes on a ski vacation. Filmed Tuesday March 30, 2021, Telluride Ski Resort.
Grok summary shownotes: In the “Lift Talks” episode recorded in Telluride, Colorado, Stephan Kinsella and Anthony Sammeroff deliver a dynamic conversation while riding ski lifts, starting with humorous reflections on their trip [0:00-9:00]. They discuss their skiing adventures, hot springs visits, and encounters with COVID-19 mask policies, including a tense plane incident involving a dropped tissue and a stewardess enforcing federal mask laws [3:46-5:57]. Their libertarian perspective shines through as they mock passive-aggressive mask enforcers and recount a refreshing interaction with a store clerk who opposed mask mandates [6:09-7:06]. The hosts also share personal stories, like Sammeroff’s flirtatious banter about a vegan woman and a chance meeting with a friend from a yoga retreat, highlighting cultural differences between American and European directness [7:12-8:27].
The conversation deepens as they explore libertarian philosophy and critique political ideologies [21:11-36:29]. They debate the right’s realism versus the left’s egalitarianism, asserting that libertarians provide intellectual foundations often stolen by conservatives [21:17-22:28]. A discussion with guest Peggy around [44:02-48:46] reveals her partial alignment with libertarianism but concerns about policing without government, prompting Kinsella and Sammeroff to advocate for privatized security and critique public sector failures, like a case where police neglected rape victims [47:36-48:25]. The episode concludes with reflections on their friendship, Sammeroff’s newfound opportunities in America, and plans for future episodes, all infused with humor and philosophical insights [50:01-54:45].
Three day skiing video compilation telluride March 2021
Grok detailed shownotes
Bullet-Point Summary with Time Markers and Descriptions for 10-15 Minute Blocks
0:00-10:00: Introduction and Ski Trip Anecdotes
Description: The episode opens with Stephan Kinsella and Anthony Sammeroff introducing their “Lift Talks” concept while riding a gondola in Telluride, Colorado. They share photos from their trip, including hot springs visits and skiing with hosts Peggy and David. The conversation is lighthearted, focusing on their skiing experiences and humorous takes on mask enforcement.
Summary: The hosts discuss their first two days skiing, including a visit to Orvis Hot Springs and a funny incident where Sammeroff struggled with the COVID-19 vaccine’s effects [2:00-2:12]. They recount a plane incident where a couple and stewardess chided Sammeroff for not wearing his mask properly [3:46-5:04], reflecting their libertarian disdain for mandates. They also mention meeting a store clerk who opposed masks, revealing a shared skepticism [6:09-7:06].
10:01-20:00: Libertarian Banter and Cultural Observations
Description: The hosts continue their lift ride, joking about their skiing skills, privilege, and cultural differences between Americans and Europeans. They touch on libertarian figures like Jeffrey Tucker and share stories from hot springs, including an encounter with a Native American man spouting spiritual beliefs.
Summary: Sammeroff and Kinsella playfully debate their skiing prowess and privilege [10:00-10:26], with Sammeroff joking about needing a “privilege diet.” They critique American passive-aggressiveness compared to European directness [5:22-5:57] and recount a hot springs visit where a Native American man preached about rock and water [16:56-17:26]. The conversation briefly turns philosophical, questioning objective reality, but they pivot back to humor [18:19-18:30].
20:01-30:00: Political Philosophy and Right vs. Left Critique
Description: The discussion shifts to political theory, with the hosts critiquing the right’s realism and the left’s egalitarianism. They argue that libertarians provide intellectual foundations for conservatives, who often dismiss them. They also share stories from their travels, including an Uber driver’s shift toward free-market ideas.
Summary: Kinsella and Sammeroff challenge Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s view that the right is more realistic, arguing that conservatives co-opt libertarian ideas without gratitude [21:17-22:28]. They discuss an Uber driver in Auburn who moved from Democratic to free-market sympathies after researching Trump [39:26-40:10]. The hosts also mention Oprah’s bridge in Telluride, mocking its extravagance [20:51-21:03].
30:01-40:00: Libertarian Theory and Legal Philosophy
Description: The conversation deepens into the distinctions between political philosophy, political theory, and legal theory. They explore libertarianism as a normative framework for law and economics, contrasting it with Marxist or conservative approaches. The hosts also plan a catered dinner and discuss mask preferences with the chef.
Summary: Kinsella explains libertarianism as a normative political philosophy that argues for what law should be, distinguishing it from descriptive legal theory [33:04-36:29]. They critique political economy’s historical focus on state-run economies versus modern economics’ broader scope [37:31-38:01]. The hosts mention a chef asking about mask preferences, planning to gauge public sentiment on mandates [27:36-28:03].
40:01-50:00: Guest Appearance and Libertarian Solutions
Description: Guest Peggy joins the lift talk, expressing cautious support for libertarianism but raising concerns about policing without government. The hosts advocate for privatized security and critique public police failures. They also share lighthearted moments, like joking about a feminist T-shirt.
Summary: Peggy agrees with less government but questions how to handle crime without police [44:02-45:12]. Kinsella and Sammeroff argue that private security would be more accountable, citing a case where police failed rape victims due to no legal obligation to protect [47:36-48:25]. They joke about a T-shirt reading “She Wants the Destruction of Patriarchy” [42:28-42:40].
50:01-55:23: Reflections and Closing
Description: The episode wraps up with reflections on their friendship, Sammeroff’s opportunities in America, and plans for future episodes. They share clips of skiing and dinner party photos, maintaining a humorous and optimistic tone.
Summary: Sammeroff credits Kinsella for his newfound opportunities, including speaking engagements and book deals, contrasting this with his past in Scotland [51:41-53:50]. They joke about Kinsella’s past drinking and his book “Against Intellectual Property” [50:43-51:15]. The episode ends with a call for feedback on “Lift Talks” and photos from a beef Wellington dinner [54:39-55:16].
This summary captures the episode’s blend of humor, personal anecdotes, and libertarian philosophy, segmented into digestible blocks for show notes.
Transcript
0:00
all right this is stefan kinsella and anthony summeroff will be joining me these are some
0:05
photographs of our trip to telluride our first day or two before we get to
0:11
this is the hot springs the orvis hot springs and ridgeway that we went to and this is uh
0:17
me and anthony on the left and me and anthony and david
0:22
and peggy are gracious hosts a few pictures taken on top of the
0:27
mountain me and anthony and then this is uh peggy and david and anthony
0:33
and here’s me afraid to go down a hyper mowgli black which i did not go down and here
0:39
we go this is uh the beginning of lift talks
0:45
with anthony summeroff and stephen gonzalo how are you doing there i think
0:50
excellent you’re looking forward to having a good lift talk on the left oh sure this has been like one of the best holidays
0:56
ever and we’re only on the second freaking day i know i know right i know right okay we’ll see
1:02
you on the left okay so this is we’re about to get on the gondola head up
1:08
about to get on the gondola they ask you to put this over your mouth and nose which is what [ __ ]
1:29
[Music]
1:36
nicely done that was just a majestic as a gazelle
1:46
all right how elegantly i can compensate for my errors in life ah peace and quiet okay this is tuesday
1:54
we skied yesterday and we’re on our second day starting off late starting off late because someone
2:00
couldn’t get out of bed someone’s recovering from the covet vaccine number two which all my libertarian friends warned me about
2:06
taking but i just didn’t listen yeah you should have injected that poison into your
2:12
bloodstream yeah and feeling the effects so this whole trip has turned into a kobe trip because all
2:18
you do is complain about covet and get us in trouble and almost get kicked off of dead airplanes yeah so i
2:24
guess we should introduce you into some of the characters that we’ve met do you want to sit here so that we
2:29
can both be in the frame and tell the story i’ll sit by you sweetie yeah you’ll get some nice views
2:34
this is such a great idea i love this show the samurai can sell the show so
2:41
yeah i mean in houston it was pretty good with the covert i mean most places you go to shop they ask you
2:47
for a mask i don’t usually put my mask on until i’m asked if someone asks me to put on the
2:53
mask they usually are quite polite they say excuse me sir do you have a mask and i or could you put a mask on and i
3:00
say yes i can do that for you and i say i could do it for them because i want them to know that i don’t believe in that
3:07
[ __ ] and that’s my little bit of civil disobedience but i never met that pro even though you
3:14
you’re telling me that houston’s a pretty blue city i never met the sarcastic
3:21
um overly polite massive aggressive progressive slash liberal i hate that
3:28
they stole her word but liberal [ __ ] smarmy
3:33
until i went to colorado
3:38
this is just a commercial break you keep talking long-winded story [Music] um let’s see what about the what about
3:46
the people on the plane yeah so you you tell that story because i saw that story better than i did oh
3:52
yeah so we were flying to telluride from denver on a little plane and we were sitting together behind us was a
3:58
couple but before you go on to the couple the air host stats announced please ladies and gentlemen the mask
4:05
must be over your mouth and nose and she gave me a direct look because my mask was up to here but i really want to tell these people
4:11
do you think that i’m not wearing it over my nose just to be an obtuse [ __ ] because i know i am an obtuse
4:17
[ __ ] but that’s not why i’m not wearing it over my nose i’m not wearing it over my nose because i like to freaking breathe air
4:24
and it just doesn’t it feels really bad breathing through the mask so anyway the fabric you go on and so
4:30
and so uh the the people behind him he dropped his tissue and it flies to fall and they say excuse me sir did you
4:36
drop your tissue which wasn’t the real question because they they knew he dropped this tissue they wanted to like
4:42
chide him for contaminating the world with his with his uh tissue and then they said
4:47
and could you please put your mask up like that was a whole it was a ruse to yeah and then the stewardess comes over
4:53
and she’s like sir i’ve asked you three times it is a federal law and if i have to report you to the
4:59
captain you could be banned from all future flights presumably on key lime bum [ __ ] air what
5:04
the [ __ ] and the only you only need to fly one more time in your life
5:10
on thursday when we go home such a maverick getting into trouble from the aeros but yeah the funny thing is the guy was
5:17
so overly friendly and smarmy when he was like excuse me sir i think you dropped your
5:22
tissue but what like this is a difference in culture between americans and europeans
5:28
because i was in the autobahn in germany and i was playing something
5:34
out of my phone and the german lady was just like excuse me sir could you put headphones on and
5:39
she just said exactly what she meant so if it was in europe that guy would have been like excuse me sir your
5:45
handkerchief is bothering us can you please pick us up pick it off the floor why do you [ __ ] have to be so
5:52
passive aggressive and it was girlfriend his girlfriend as well she didn’t say play she was just
5:57
like oh yeah and put your mask up over your nose go suck a dick lady anything to add
6:04
what were you talking about yeah
6:09
uh i guess i agree but i’m just i’m just complying oh then we met this cute chick at the targaryen oh yeah she was fine
6:15
yeah it was this babe i came in without my mask she did she was kind of like a rock chick with tattoos on her neck and
6:21
we didn’t even know she had piercings on stefan asked her to take her mask down so we could see her face
6:27
i i mentioned that i mentioned something about masks and she more or less told us that she didn’t give a [ __ ] and she thought it was harsh [ __ ] yeah
6:34
it hides people’s faces so they can’t see each other yeah she’s like what did she say it hides
6:40
people’s faces so they can’t see each other and she said hopefully it’s going to be lifted shortly yeah she thinks telluride
6:46
or colorado or something are there or the store owner is going to say and then kinsella said well we can’t
6:53
we’ve not seen your face you should take your mask down and she did and she had tons of piercings and i never even knew
6:59
yeah it was just as well she had her mask up she might have scared which means she’s probably a democrat but yet she’s sound on mass policy anyway
7:06
that’s a rare company she’s a unicorn she’s a democrat and yeah i’d still fill her up full of babies but then we went to
7:12
dinner with lindsay his friend lindsey from a yoga retreat in mexico yeah as one does in her
7:18
boyfriend her name from venezuela and she happens to know this chick from uh photography and she informed anthony
7:24
that sorry sadly she has a boyfriend sadly and i said well it doesn’t really
7:29
since she’s vegan it doesn’t really count as cheap yeah because you’re vegetarian and you could be you can be vegan it’s like a network it
7:36
doesn’t really count and besides i have superior genes yeah
7:50
now the thing is there’s enough of a chain of connection that lindsay could watch this and pass it on to the piercing girl but i don’t really care
7:57
anyway it’s really interesting i should tell you this i think the only person i met in
8:02
colorado on my travels was this girl lindsay right and i invited her to the libertarian
8:08
meetup i had in denver thinking well she lives in colorado maybe she’s a stone’s throw a distance
8:14
and she’s like ah that’s pretty far from where i live i don’t think i’ll make it and then i went on her facebook profile and i saw that she lived in telly ride
8:21
and i sent her a whatsapp like gtfo mates do you seriously live in telly right
8:27
that’s where we’re going skating she’s like no wait what are the chances of that okay we’re coming up to sofia
8:33
station we need to get off here let’s get sophia i mean i don’t know it means a bad actress and godfather
8:41
we’re off the lift we’re about to ski for the day hello let’s see keyboard start
9:00
i’m impressed at how much better i am today than yesterday yeah me too okay we’re on the first
9:07
official lift of our live talk adventure lift 10. and uh i think we should call this like
9:13
libertarians on the left libertarians on the left and not on the left get it yeah
9:18
the the new the new leftist libertarians oh he left this lift what does take a left mean is that
9:25
like getting higher like smoking no it means turn left on the road no take a left
9:30
take a lift i’ve never heard that marley i let my mind take a left maybe say oh
9:37
maybe his mind went up because he got high yeah what about your left for the day we can call this show
9:43
you’re take left talks you’re left for the day like you’re left out lift lift out in
9:50
the cold left over that is true
9:55
in the cold i have a surprise little t-boy here could ski so well for a scotsman for a middle-class
10:00
scotsman i know you’re better as well who’s better do you think
10:06
i don’t know because it’s hard to tell your technique might be better because you’ve got more lessons yeah i need our independent tradition
10:14
who’s pre whose privilege is better i think you’re privileged to spencer yeah
10:19
yeah i kind of think i have about 2.7 too much privilege i want to trim a little bit off i need to go on a
10:26
privileged diet i’m working on a belly
10:33
speaking of speaking of bellies i met stefan’s very lovely very beautiful
10:38
wife do you know that a lot of people have never met her jesus city exists she keeps so low profile
10:43
okay but speaking of belly social justice for your child oh he’s just he’s just a little
10:49
woke in a pleasant way but better than being an all-right [ __ ] yes i would say on the scheme of things
10:56
but you still let the team down okay but i’m gonna give you a scottish accent you tell me who it is get in my belly get in my
11:04
belly yeah you’d do a good magmar’s impression i’d do a good impression of someone
11:11
doing an impression oh look this is proof that the irish and
11:17
the scots can get along after all but you’re not really a irish just like [ __ ] off
11:25
you bastards you get to have a [ __ ] heritage we can’t have one no what do you want me to trace my
11:30
heritage back to abraham lincoln in europe no one ever says they’re
11:36
she’s moving the camera well they still hear your voice
11:50
she had to build a multi-million dollar bridge to get to her house for the whole community’s benefit she said okay yeah
11:56
i mean just imagine how many starving children in africa i wonder if oprah’s do you think oprah skis or she just like
12:01
has a house in the mountains like i’m sure she invites her skiing
12:07
buddies over he doesn’t look like a skier though you gotta admit yeah she’s a little bit heavy around the
12:13
belly area but you don’t want to talk so hey i started when i was kidding
12:19
you were skidding yeah i was skinny skinny as [ __ ] let’s see after i was about 37. insert photographic
12:28
evidence to video all right i thought you were just like boned i didn’t think you were actually a big house
12:33
now that you’ve told me that you put on the way i know i’m a little feller like you it’s due to your weak character
12:39
i know due to brainwashing from the state which i’ve succumbed to i actually put on 11 pounds since coming to eastern
12:46
texas but it was a little bit crikey that’s almost half a stone i know but i don’t want to take all of
12:52
it off i only want to take six pounds off just grow your love muscle i got a
12:57
little bit of a belly actually you can see yeah you look you look like a little buddha symbol or something a little bit
13:02
well it’s not times by someone to take six times off okay lift talk segment three or whatever
13:10
signing off all right lift uh left hand the second time we’re uh
13:17
that was pretty good what did you think about that run i really enjoyed it nice and flat it’s fast slightly icy but
13:22
not too bad right yeah i’m eating a granola bar why don’t you take take it away until like
13:28
because i had two muffins already that’s enough for my big muffin why don’t you chat to the audience while
13:34
i eat oh they might like to see you eat all right anybody like to see me
13:41
what you can find on is this going to be on your on your podcast what is this spot it was scottish
13:46
liberty there was a scottish puberty i’ve got a lot of different professions
13:53
you can find me at www.beak.com
13:59
uh well unfortunately i’ve seen you naked twice already [ __ ] hot springs someone forgot his
14:05
bathing suit doesn’t wear a mask anywhere i’ll put it that way
14:14
here’s the thing what’s the thing speaking of things you didn’t need to see my junk if you
14:21
weren’t looking at my junk you mean this is easy to miss
14:27
yeah but not in a gay week [Music]
14:37
my butt cheek touched his knee and the jacuzzi but not in a gateway it was just his
14:43
friends he was getting in and i said dude boundaries
14:49
i totally thought it was i thought it was a hairy porpoise swimming by like it can’t be can’t be in a hot tub
14:55
no it’s gotta be something those aren’t pillows
15:02
all right so anyway we’re gonna we haven’t wrecked one time we haven’t wrecked at all i’ve not fallen over even once i’ve almost
15:09
wrecked but anyway what about lift thoughts how are we getting lifting people on
15:15
this talk and left in their lives well i just wanted to talk about the fact that
15:21
when you get near the left they sometimes ask you to fill this up over your nose today’s always a good
15:27
[ __ ] guy i’ll look like are you [ __ ] or something like i actually looked at him
15:33
like that all right i think he knew but the thing is you’re nowhere near
15:38
anyone and the thing is everyone knows it’s [ __ ] they’re just do it because their boss
15:44
said and their bosses just do it because their boss said and it won’t where is people’s line do
15:51
people actually have a line anymore where they say their total state is sheeple
15:56
so tell them about our adventure on sunday so we flew in sunday from denver no yeah after spending saturday night
16:01
there and seeing some old buddies i saw karen and harlow and my old buddy chris simoneau and he saw some other people there’s a
16:08
different buddies they were really cool we couldn’t we can order because the the grouping was not appropriate for logistical reasons
16:14
but anyway so we flew in and he he happened to know this girl from from
16:20
a mexican yoga retreat no i’m not making this up and she lives in telluride so her and her boyfriend
16:27
met us and they took us to these hot springs and and uh well they took us to uray first which is where gulf gulch is
16:33
that was cool yeah and we had some really unhealthy mexican food it was great
16:39
and then we went to uh ridgeway went to the orvis hot springs which is clothing optional which you took
16:44
advantage of too it was very optional for me oh tell about that it was optional in the sense that it’s
16:50
an option that i didn’t take the steam tell about the steam room with the rocks in the water the sauna and who was this native
16:56
american guy that was like we used to pray we used to give thanks
17:02
to rock and water then the white man came and he made us give thanks to god
17:08
but we used to give thanks to rock and water because we’re made of rock and water yeah he started listing off the
17:15
elements of stone is made of potassium and that’s what our rock bodies are made of so we
17:20
give thanks to stone and water and he wanted to educate us on the ways
17:26
of the ancients and it was just a bunch of my superstitious religious [ __ ]
17:32
is better than your superstitious people i like that skinny topless chick sitting down beneath us he was going like
17:38
i wonder if it’s better to pay someone to find your energy or to find your energy yourself i mean i
17:44
was in a hot of freaking democrats let’s face it it was worse than that these were like they were sort of like
17:50
the cast of a show that is yeah this is a new age
17:56
retreat or something [Laughter]
18:13
since we’ve touched upon religious issues definitely we need to bank for a topic our discussion on
18:19
as object how certain can you be the objective reality is objective
18:24
reality as certain as one can be you can have that as certain as possible you can have that whole conversation
18:30
it goes to 11 put it that way it goes to 11. i’m not even going to do this we’re
18:35
gonna have to have a frothy discussion a proper lengthy discussion these are not things matters that can be
18:42
solved in weird sound bites okay here’s what’s funny when i pass someone on the left like this like imagine that’s a
18:47
person right when they get here you say what state are you from and they feel compelled to answer
18:53
they’ll go ah alabama and then they’re like wait were we having that conversation and
18:59
that granola bar was really freaking good i wish i had it i thought you were against grains i’m not a fan of greens but i’m hungry
19:06
and we’re on the left just walking [ __ ] contradiction aren’t you well it would be better if i packed some bananas i agree but
19:12
i thought you were packing a banana well you’re the one who had a good wood cat i
19:18
did not have a good look at it i had a bad look at it why did you keep on going on and on about my jug
19:35
i’m a fan of jeffrey tucker and also mark thornton and also david gordon
19:44
sorry what we say
19:50
oh can you harmonize try to harmonize also try to harmonize with me
20:06
i don’t think he did i’ll try a different pitch oh
20:28
that sucks i am not picking up good vibrations i’m thinking of a good vibration sunset
20:36
let me do a good time i know this one
20:44
all right until the next lift lift stay lifted like his shoes all right we’re halfway
20:51
down from lift 10 sunshine express and why don’t you tell us what this is
20:56
this is oprah’s bridge which she had commissioned and built she’d think that she had
21:03
better things to spend her fortunes on than a bridge but seemingly not thank you oprah
21:11
for this bridge of peace okay we were talking about the like hops idea
21:17
that the right is realistic about recognizing hierarchies and differences and authority figures
21:23
naturally and the left is egalitarian and you think it’s horseshit well i mean i don’t think they’re they’re
21:31
right as realist or anything like that they’re just they’re mostly defined by what they
21:36
don’t like throughout history they just change their position and that’s not a way to be
21:41
in the world and that’s not a way to and that’s why they lose because look they’re not coherent
21:47
they’re not a cohort yeah throughout history who has actually written the political
21:52
philosophy there’s maybe about a dozen
21:58
hardcore right-wing intellectuals most of the basis for their philosophy
22:05
has been written by libertarians who they steal ideas from and then [ __ ]
22:10
all over how did they treat iron rand they shot and pissed all over her after stealing
22:16
her they did shot on her and how did they treat murray rothbard they shattered pissed all over him after
22:23
stealing his ideas they show no gratitude whatsoever
22:28
to libertarians for actually doing their thinking for them the left or right when they say okay
22:34
well if pop is right when he says that the right are realists
22:40
then the left to right when they say that they’re right or anti-intellectual they are anti-intellectual they’ve
22:45
always been anti-intellectual and i agree and so okay
22:51
basically what was saying is people like hoppa have a soft spot for the right and they create all sorts there is a
22:58
reason that they’re they libertarians have more in common with the conservatives today but not under
23:04
push okay we gotta get on we have all these wacky theories for why the right is better than the left but
23:10
they hate you they think that you’re they’re your their [ __ ] little cousin like rudrak
23:16
from the film dirty rotten sponge featuring steve martin if you’ve not seen it watch it bye well
23:23
i might as well film this here we go go to the right
23:38
okay we made it
23:44
all right for now oh that was a good run that was good right nice and icy
23:51
like i like my woman you like your woman i see i always say a girl who can’t back
23:59
chat in all that i made that up myself was what’s blackjack it means like sassy a little bit oh back
24:07
talk she used to be clever yeah if a girl isn’t clever she’s just how do i see this possibly
24:16
correctly let’s see her functions are limited [Laughter]
24:23
i i object to that on behalf of all women whatever gender are you seeing
24:33
[Music] at least you have more functions
24:56
i was watching tom woods play game of chess with david damn what’s that guy’s name steel
25:03
ramsey steel great guy david ramsey steel i was sick yeah you’re not a fan
25:13
i was sitting on the couch over in alabama at the lisa’s institute and i overheard this voice and i was like
25:20
you are a dead ringer for someone i can’t think who where are you from means like well birmingham that’s a long story short
25:26
oh brimmie don’t they say a broomy over there yeah they do actually and i was like eventually i was like
25:33
there’s this guy someone i i said another name ramsay steel and he’s like oh that’s funny because
25:39
i’m david ramsey still i was like yeah i’ve read some of your book from marks to missus so we got in a chat
25:47
anyway him and tom woods were playing chess and tom wins is brilliant to play chess
25:56
he almost beat he he
26:02
um walter block was an inches of losing to tom woods in a game
26:08
of chess and top and walter williams clawed it back at the last moment
26:14
but that’s to be expected because it was just walter defending the undefendable
26:21
exactly what i was thinking anyway i was just remarking to steph and it’s funny how the horse
26:27
is the night and chest because i always thought that it
26:32
was the person riding the horse that was that sounds like a david gordon joke for some reason
26:39
but i i always thought it was the the person writing the first that was the night
26:44
but i didn’t know this was the roman emperor which had a horse for a cemetery but
26:50
apparently no a horse is a high ranking member of the feudal system
26:56
so you learn something every day well we know that some of their cousins are asses so you know that would make sense
27:03
i just sat on the couch and had a chat to channel
27:09
well it’s the mountain’s empty today right i think that’s why we have it to ourselves we’re like kings
27:16
yeah we’re taking our privilege king canute did he ever get this tied to go back now
27:23
the question is can we ever get the tide of statism to go back or is that just like
27:29
being king canoe i’ll tell you something interesting though so tonight we’re having what i said wasn’t interesting no but my head’s on this
27:36
topic so tonight we’re having this catered dinner and the chef asked me uh
27:43
when we come over to cook would you would you prefer us to wear a mask or not like he wanted us to give him the lead
27:50
and we said we don’t give a damn anyway so i’m going to ask him tonight what percentage
27:56
what’s that what answer is he getting like what percentage of people say they don’t care which because that’ll be a good panel on the
28:03
streets so you’re gonna have to tune into the next edition of left talks to find out what he said
28:09
yeah because we’re approaching a hill which might be the terminal station but it’s not so i’m gonna tell you
28:14
well yeah so stefan being the baller that he has just arranged to have a chef come over
28:20
and cook for us well i’m paying back my host for keeping us for free that’s the idea that’s my that’s my way
28:25
of paying them how am i paying the back i’m not doing judge she gave them a book that’s true we brought them some
28:31
chocolate well you’re you’re you’re giving them free medical advice i’m going to send
28:38
them a thank you card free diet advice yeah
28:44
my friends are nice nice normal republicans that’s what you want that’s you want to
28:49
go on vacation with nice normal republicans you’re good you just i don’t know why you’ve got
28:54
such a border
29:03
not compared to lee oh yeah lee new friend leah gloaty no
29:09
but you just didn’t just
29:17
all right i gotta pause my hands getting too cold we’ll pick this up there we go we’re on left one the little chandler
29:25
end of the last left yeah sorry i’m not really good at fitting ideas into short spaces i always
29:30
think that in order to give a full picture of an idea you really need to i know like that lady done she’s like
29:36
okay can you explain bitcoin to me in two minutes i said probably not
29:43
i mean judging by your apparent technical abilities and my ability to summarize all this
29:49
stuff you’re not really doing things in lay person’s terms is not really your struggle well i
29:55
i didn’t think you’d have the cons time the time attention span to listen long enough for
30:01
me to slowly explain it so i was compressing but anyway my mouth is so
30:06
cold where it’s like yeah i think sigmarcic
30:19
oh no no no it was asymptote asymptotic i said it approaches the line
30:26
asymptotically and they’re like what’s that i said you know math like i never heard that only that’s the opposite of exponential
30:32
that’s what i told him well i don’t think it helped i i finally explained that
30:39
what other words do you use uh praxeology just keep on resting there
30:46
better try to explain it uh my mouth is so frozen
30:52
um uh what big words heterogeneous um
31:00
uh ella mercenary i like to use that one oh i like this
31:07
yeah l-e-e with a little exit mark m-o-s-y-n-a-r-y
31:13
that’s in case you want to look it up in the dictionary and find out what it means it means terrible how many big words do
31:20
you actually know of your accounting no probably more than average but um
31:25
i like to say something like the average person is a [ __ ] idiot so you could basically discount most of
31:31
those i like these words the opposite way say something like uh like like i just swam in the pool oh
31:37
that swim was so innovating innervate means a sappy of strength
31:44
but it sounds like you’re energized yeah no one even knows they don’t know the words they’re like yeah i feel innervated too
31:49
like really do you i tricked you i tricked you into
31:54
misusing a word wrongly i’ll i’ll like i’ll hold up on a can of gasoline and say is this slammable or
32:00
inflammable welcome to my berg trend welcome to my world we’re going to go up
32:08
the foe now we can go to guarano ranch whatever have a hot chocolate if you want that
32:15
wouldn’t be too bad because it’s kind of cold dude don’t waste out on me tomorrow will be a little warmer anyway i
32:20
don’t know it’s desolate here it’s just dead no wonder they’re closing it early they put all these freaking uh gondola
32:27
carriages around the fireplace in the center of mountain village so people can socially distance and sit by the fire in their little cabins
32:34
i kind of just want to infect everyone with the virus just to spite the people who are
32:40
destroying my life because of it [ __ ] it give it to everyone let god
32:45
sort them out i thought libertarians were not misanthropes well so a lot of libertarians are
32:51
wrestling throats tan my usual co-hosts myself confessed my son i’m gonna defend
32:57
him he was a good host all right i’m gonna stop say goodbye my mouth’s freezing over all right lift
33:04
four so we were talking yesterday like what’s the difference between political philosophy
33:10
political theory legal theory stuff libertarians do
33:17
so i think it’s an intersection of some of those right because it’s intersecting
33:32
so you said you had some thoughts on that well you asked
33:50
yeah because you’re talking about what the law ought to be ought to be so you need to
33:57
know some law which is why it’s political theory rather than legal theory
34:02
because yeah it would be something like legal
34:15
rather than what the law is what the structure of the law is correct as it starts correct see some
34:21
people say i’m good at these pedantic things like making distinctions between lots of different
34:28
things that’s really why some people like to read my stuff because i’m really [ __ ] pedantic and i split hairs um
34:36
so that’s a good question for me if i do say so myself i know i’m bad at
34:41
i don’t think i’m a very original thinker i think that i’m pretty good at presenting other people’s ideas i don’t
34:48
think that it’s better to be right than original right yeah it’s better to do something well this hike it’s better to do something
34:56
well then be to do something original i think occasionally new arguments but it’s not my strong
35:03
point this is why where we’re going to go after garado branch
35:08
go hang out with the sun what do you think that sounds great see but you know you wouldn’t call
35:14
libertarianism a political theory it’s a political philosophy so it is a self-political philosophy but
35:21
i think a political philosophy is more like yes it’s a certain view about the way
35:27
politics should be structured which is a view about logical theory as sorry you’re saying political
35:33
philosophy political philosophy is a field of study i would say it studies
35:38
it studies political systems so it’s not really political it’s studies ideal we’re very strong we’re
35:45
arguing normatively so we’re arguing normatively about what the law should be i just don’t know what to do when you’re arguing nor
35:51
okay when you’re arguing so you’re saying sorry i interrupted what’s your question no what
35:57
what’s the right word for it when you’re arguing normatively for what the political system
36:04
should be and what the law should be yeah you’re doing political philosophy philosophy when you’re arguing what the
36:11
law should be you’re maybe doing
36:18
political philosophy as well but you could say more even more you could invent a term
36:24
for it like just by shoving things together like legal moral philosophy
36:29
no no but legal moral philosophy would be a study of different views on what the law should be so i
36:36
talk about like i like i say i do i i do libertarian theory
36:42
i see you so that’s the best material i think that’s the best it’s really theorizing what the libertarian position but what
36:48
would the what would the what would be what would the correlative thing be for for a socialist or for
36:55
or for environmentalists or for a conservative would they be doing conservative legal
37:02
theory or conservative theory well i mean it depends what because what was marx do
37:10
it a mixture of a bunch of stuff yeah political philosophy sociology economics not very good
37:18
economics but he’s still doing economic he’s still basically understood
37:23
a lot of ricardo and smith and he could say exactly what he disagreed with when it came to regardless what i find
37:31
always interesting is how the word economics used to be called political economy
37:37
but it also had a slightly different school we think political economy sort
37:42
of encompassed political philosophy and political and economic sort of no political economy was saying
37:48
how a state should run the economy whereas economics has far greater boundaries i was just
37:55
studying economic phenomena yeah indeed so political economy it was more limited in scope
38:01
well maybe what we’re doing is libertarianism’s political economy because we’re saying what how the state should run the economy
38:07
economy because political economy is not normative so as soon as you bring in enormous
38:13
services you’re bringing in philosophy all right we gotta cut this short great
38:18
conversation by the way good talk thank you thank you internet tomboy
38:23
timer how’s that feeling i think i should nick
38:29
can’t go on under that all right that was a nice little break hi
38:35
it was a nice it was a nice too long break if you stop for too long you don’t want
38:41
to get back up i guess yeah i guess i have it backwards this time so anyway likes to stare off
38:48
wistfully into the distance and zone out yeah one of his habits my wifey says why don’t don’t do jessie
38:55
because we used to have a female friend named jessie who would do that staring she didn’t want you to do her because she was afraid that jesse
39:01
might be better in bed well i actually dated jesse because she was like all the more recent things
39:08
my wife’s good friend and roommate dude jesse did you do jesse i dated jesse
39:16
that’s all i’ll say and a gentleman never talks well i must not be a gentleman because i
39:21
love talking about sex
39:26
okay what about the uh the the uber driver and auburn the black chick who picked this up
39:33
yeah we had uh do you want to tell the story no you can we had a black taxi driver pick us up
39:41
she was getting into thomas seoul and walter williams she said she freaked out about trump when trump
39:47
got elected so she did her research on youtube and the more she found out the more she realized she was more
39:53
sympathetic to free market ideas and uh
39:59
she gave me her email address i’ll send her a link to a book i liked
40:04
and then asked her she thanked me and i said is there anything you want me to watch she didn’t reply
40:10
so i guess that’s the end of that she had this kind of complicated name like antonita or something like that
40:16
yeah she had a similar name to me anyway that’s where we’re gonna hit
40:24
today at the end we’re gonna go and do some sunbathing we think about that it looks like heaven
40:33
i like working i don’t like sunbathing we’re gonna sunbathe today and you’re
40:38
gonna like it whether you like it or not
40:43
all right we’re gonna go meet beat miss peggy in a second and ski with our buddies but either way it’s a beautiful day in the
40:49
neighborhood why do they always play africa by total when hold the line is clearly a superior
40:56
song yeah i don’t think they can answer you because this is a one-way conversation
41:05
all right later later that is what she said last night all right so we’re on the left and
41:10
you’re whining that you’re cold it’s a little bit cold today yeah it’s colder it’s about 12 degrees colder than
41:16
yesterday but tomorrow will be warm again so that’ll be just perfecto huh yeah i’ll probably get sunburned and
41:21
then i’ll have something else to wait about we’re gonna go meet miss peggy who’s a normie
41:26
she’s lovely that’s peggy peggy
41:31
anyway uh we’re going to do a hot tub adventures segment in our in our yeah in our lift
41:38
you up segment you can get a little bit of uh insight into the world for our
41:43
libertarian celebrities i watch said should i film some of the dinner party tonight that might be inappropriate
41:51
these people might not want to be associated with libertarians they might want to talk about they might
41:57
want to talk like conservatives about how it’s for people’s fault david this morning
42:04
david said and they work harder than other people and that’s why they’re rich
42:09
what did you say uh david said i’ve never met an anarchist before i
42:16
said well you’ve met three now because i brought one carpio here and and anthony we’re all three enterprise
42:22
capitals we’re growing we’re growing threat man better watch out yeah stop sucking the
42:28
deck of this state oh what’s that feminist t-shirt you said you liked oh yeah i want to get one that says she wants the destruction
42:35
of patriarchy
42:40
she was the d instruction of patriarchy that’s funny if someone wants if someone
42:48
wants to get a nice version of that t-shirt made for me i’ll gladly accept the gift i want to go down there that’s what i
42:56
want to do today i want to go chillax on the snow what you want to do
43:03
we could do it for a while all right okay now here’s a brief clip from the uber driver conversation in auburn
43:10
uh at the mises event a few weeks ago that we just mentioned in the previous lift talk club i’m gonna go back to the
43:16
50s yeah go back to the 50s but we were thriving so was it a slave mentality then no exactly
43:28
i haven’t fully turned republican yet but i’m on the verge well we’re libertarians actually so we’re like republican square but but
43:34
what you said was very open yeah yeah but i definitely i’m um breaking away from the
43:40
democratic party because at the end of the day they’re not serving you right they’re not thank you so much
43:46
okay and now back to our regularly scheduled lift talk where we join miss peggy our neighbor
43:52
and friend and host gracious host and lovely lady that’s all what’s even the part in that hey so uh
44:02
this is lift talk part x with special guest peggy hello
44:08
i can take my little mask off you’re gonna be on on the youtube oh yeah yeah i don’t know what do you
44:14
think about this libertarian stuff we keep yammering on about you guys are a little bit crazy but
44:19
generally i agree with it good crazy
44:26
i can’t get there on all of it okay well there’s hope left my child i’m already
44:31
there babe there’s no way back for me i know i’ve been handcapped since i was two months old
44:37
you’ve been what in capital anarcho capitalism again antarctica capitalists see this is
44:44
what we have it means libertarian middle-of-the-road right-wing conservatives don’t
44:49
understand their lexicon yeah but peggy i mean generally speaking
44:54
i like the less government idea good good woman you’re you’re you’re headed
44:59
a lot less like a lot like like very less like oh like none that sounds good
45:06
i don’t know they’re kind of crazy people out there yeah i know what do you do about a
45:12
police force well what what we do about chris i know it’s private what do you do with crazy people in the absence of
45:19
government well i’ve got an idea well you don’t put them in charge of a freaking government
45:25
that’s a good start what do you do because it’s not going to be greek negativity like sociopathic people who
45:31
only care about themselves well one thing you do is you don’t put them in charge of the military
45:37
the money is start what do you do with abusive people who like to beat people up well one thing is you don’t give them
45:44
guns so i’ll take my chances with the free
45:50
market thank you very much with the free market or with a free market there
45:56
there’s only one it doesn’t really matter i don’t know just like being pedantic so you’ll have to send peggy emails
46:03
explaining to her what we’re going to do about police force not that the police force does a good job of preventing crime
46:10
or even solving crime in fact sometimes when you get your car stolen and it’s got a microchip in it
46:16
that allows them to locate your car using a satellite the police still tell you they’re not
46:21
going to locate the car and apprehend the assailant so one thing i
46:26
would say is you fire the police if they don’t actually do a good job and you hire someone else to do their
46:32
job before they if they do a good job if they don’t do a good job you can fire them
46:38
oh that would be nice yeah there would be no police unions to take
46:44
it and teachers unions well the thing is the teachers have a monopoly service
46:50
under the current system so the union means a free market there’d be a bunch of
46:57
different police people providing education the union wouldn’t be and it’s the same for the police like
47:03
they could have a union but they’d just be one of several options that people had
47:10
so if they got too big for their gifts
47:16
they’d be easier to get rid of or replace with someone better yeah i think so too i’m doing all the
47:24
heavy lifting in these left talks i’m lifting the camera my arms getting tired
47:30
is their hand getting cold yeah a little bit yeah today’s cold my lips are cold my fingers are cold my
47:36
heart is cold and shriveled your heart is cold well they had uh they had this cake this is just one case
47:43
where there was some women living together and someone broke into their home and they went up into the attic
47:50
and they called the police and the police came and drove outside their house and stopped
47:56
and then went away and after a while they went downstairs to see if anything
48:01
had happened and the three of them basically got raped by the people that broke into their house
48:07
and the police didn’t do their job i think they called them a couple times they said they’d send someone right out
48:12
again and then they took the police to court for not doing their job and the judge
48:18
ruled that the police have no obligation to protect anyone from criminals and so the cops
48:25
got off of course you don’t have an allegation even though the women got raped so what i’m saying is without government
48:31
you wouldn’t have ridiculous cases like that because they work for
48:37
you the government don’t think they work for you they think you work for them so
48:46
hey peggy where’d you get that lanyard for your phone it’s online you did it was it just for
48:53
your phone or just for a large sized phone i don’t know i’d be scared to put mine in a lot cause i
48:59
think that’d be great for me skiing oh i love it i’m scared in case i ski too fast
49:04
it comes off the lanyard why would it come off i don’t know it’s the kind of stupid
49:09
[ __ ] that happens to me i’m great at losing friends yeah
49:16
over and out over and out overnight anthony’s king
49:27
and this is a picture of anthony samurov skiing i’m recording this on imovie
49:34
and this is a very short video of anthony skiing with me filming on my iphone
50:01
well hello here we are at the end of uh a nice day skiing our second day and uh don’t look stay close yeah don’t
50:08
let me hold this here okay [Music]
50:16
this might look weird but was it inappropriate that’s okay
50:24
i talked to andre in a man jaina anyway i got a main channel so i’m not even drunk i’ve just had one
50:32
of these this is what i’m always like yeah i have one of these which is not drunky you have to appreciate
50:38
kinsella because you might remember the first time he came on the scottish liberty podcast
50:43
he was wasted yeah but not next time i like to take i
50:50
like to i like to take credit for the fact that kinsella’s quit because i like to think that it’s
50:56
because he came on our show and humiliated himself that he decided do you know what drinking is no longer for me
51:03
now if i would have remembered it it would have helped can i take credit for all of your achievements from
51:09
now on sure in fact can i post data see that book intellectual property against
51:15
intellectual property if it wasn’t for me concealing ever would have written that book cam you’ve got time
51:20
time traveling skills i know what age was i when when did that book come out [Music] 2001 2001 when i was the prime age of
51:29
15. i didn’t even know that i was going to grow up to be your friend i thought i didn’t even know
51:36
you exist never mind didn’t know i was going to be your friend it’s crazy
51:41
crazy how life works i when you came on our podcast i didn’t know you were going to be my friend
51:47
i just thought it was a podcast thing
51:52
well i guess we travel around the world that’s what you get two more lights living the high life yeah
51:59
prairie prairieville moved up to telluride can i tell you something yeah you guys at home
52:05
they used to call america the land of opportunity and that is true because
52:13
since i’ve come here i’ve had tons of opportunities i went to the conference mises institute made friends
52:19
with this dude i’m publishing a book on cellular health what else happened i had a great
52:29
experience in florida what’s more i got a phone call from i got a message
52:36
on facebook from a publisher asking to publish my next book um we went to auburn too yeah went over
52:44
and spoke to michael heiss about getting on the belt how did he say his name is
52:49
pronounced let’s tell him nice actually he said it’s not haysa heist okay it’s heist everyone
52:55
sorry michael heiss michael heisen’s official maybe we’ll have him on the show one day
53:00
maybe you could be cool with stefan okay is there anyone you want to interview
53:05
because maybe you can be the guest co-host of the podcast and interview someone
53:12
i have to think about it that’s not how i roll usually it looks like i’m going to be on the bell at the nevada libertarian party state
53:20
convention oh here’s a tip here’s a tip for you a tip for you when you go to nevada
53:25
most outsiders try to make it fancy and they call it they say nevada
53:30
but it’s really nevada that’s how i pronounced that i know you did it right but the interesting thing is um
53:39
yeah maybe i should just see if i can get on all of them i’m such an attention or
53:45
um i’ve got a speaking opportunity in seattle none of this [ __ ] happened when i was in
53:50
scotland what the [ __ ] have i been doing for the last five six seven years since i’ve been a public intellectual being depressed
53:57
yeah partly so but i think it’s just because i hadn’t met you yet but now i met you and i’m no longer depressed
54:02
my life is complete this everyone thinks i’m an [ __ ] i know that’s because your online
54:09
persona is a little bit more sharp than you are in real life i love the
54:15
fact that because i’m in the pool it makes her look like the bottom half of my body
54:22
look look look it makes it look tiny it’s an illusion it’s like i’m a little bit it’s like
54:27
it’s like optical shrinkage so i think what we should do is end our
54:33
indoor lift notes today and maybe do another tomorrow maybe we’ll stop this could be episode one and
54:39
tomorrow could be episode b so let us know if you like lyft notes and we’ll just do it every time we come to colorado
54:45
sweet cheers guys thank you so much for watching or listening awesome yay that is so
54:52
beautiful this is so awesome i i like it better once it’s cooked it’s just golden color
54:57
to it and like crunchy crispy awesome
55:04
okay what would you like oh my goodness and
55:10
now just a few photos from the dinner party that followed this evening after our second day of
55:16
skiing in our first lift talks this is the beef wellington this is the dessert and
This is my appearance on Heterodorx Episode 10: I.P. Everywhere!, hosted by Nina Paley and Corinna Cohn (posted March 29, 2021; recorded March 25, 2021). Nina is also on the C4SIF Advisory Board. From the shownotes (see also Nina’s Facebook post):
Get ready for some hardcore Libertarian nerd-talk, as Corinna goes head-to-head with Stephan Kinsella, author of Against Intellectual Property, and Libertarianism’s foremost critic of copyright and patents. Thrill to dazzling theories of labor vs. action, restrictive covenants, negative easements, burdened estates, nuisances, limitations, consent, redistribution of rights, triangular intervention, property, scarcity, value, allocation of contestable resources, conflict, trade secrets, the Patent Bargain, disclosure, distortion, abolishing the FDA…wait, what? By the end of the episode, Corinna suffers a long-overdue crisis of faith. SUCCESS!
I’ve decided to try to set up contributions, on a regular basis, to some of the people and groups doing good work in libertarian, bitcoin, or related areas, via Patreon, Local, and other channels. Here are the ones I support at present, either irregularly or (usually) regularly. I plan to update this list from time to time.
My friends Walter Block and William Barnett published an interesting paper several years ago, “On the Optimum Quantity of Money,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2004, pp. 39-52. 1 At a Mises Institute conference in 2010 or 2011, or perhaps in a phone call with Walter, I believe we discussed this issue and some papers they had written about this. I disagreed with Walter and, after reading their full paper, sent them some critical comments. These (lightly edited), with some prefatory and additional comments, are appended below.
Prefatory Note
In this email, back in 2011, at the dawn of bitcoin, I said bitcoin seems almost like an “ideal money”. Too bad I didn’t act on it… : [continue reading…]
I was asked some questions about intellectual property, and how you can sell something (like information, or ideas, or even your labor) if you don’t own it, by Shea Fisker, a budding libertarian and fellow libertarian. He had just the right attitude. He listened and thought, and asked reasonable questions when he had an issue that puzzled him. Would that so many cocksure pro-IP libertarians, who really know almost nothing about IP law itself and the fundamentals of libertarian property theory, or even how to argue or discuss issues without being tendentious, equivocating, or question-begging.
Youtube below:
Here is the interchange which led to this discussion (lightly edited), along with related links: [continue reading…]
Back on May 24, 2020, I appeared on the Scottish Liberty Podcast, with hosts Antony Sammeroff and Tom Laird. We discussed IP and related matters, including Sammeroff’s recent debate on the topic of IP with pro-IP Randian law professor Adam Mossoff. I was a bit drunk and it shows, and went off on a rant and was not as coherent as usual. The episode was entitled “Under the Influence… of Stephan Kinsella… Against Intellectual Property”. We recorded a second episode on May 30, 2020, entitled “A Sober Conversation with Stephan Kinsella…,” which was released as KOL289. I just realized I never posted the initial episode, so here it is, warts and all (unfortunately for fans of my drunken rants, I have quit drinking alcohol since I realized it’s a destructive poison with no benefits at all, so this won’t happen again).
In his remarks, Mossoff mentioned this paper by Stephen Haber as supporting the empirical case for patents (funny, I thought the Objectivists had principles): Stephen Haber, “Patents and the Wealth of Nations,” 23 Geo. Mason L.Rev. 811 (2016). I have read through it as much as I can stand and provide my critical commentary here: “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright”–see in particular note 3 and accompanying text.
❧
Transcript
Scottish Liberty Podcast: Discussing the Mossoff-Sammeroff IP Debate, Take 1: Under the Influence of Stephan Kinsella: Against Intellectual Property (May 21, 2020)
[Transcript of “Scottish Liberty Podcast: Discussing the Mossoff-Sammeroff IP Debate, Take 1: Under the Influence…” (May 21, 2020)]
00:00:03
TOM LAIRD: Welcome to episode 155 of the Scottish Liberty podcast with me, Tom Laird and, of course, the man who can, Antony Sammeroff.
00:00:13
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: That’s me.
00:00:13
TOM LAIRD: And possibly the man who can, Stephen Kinsella, big hitter from the Mises Institute and patent lawyer extraordinaire, and there he goes.
00:00:25
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Author of Against Intellectual Property, a very influential book in the libertarian movement I have to say.
00:00:33
STEPHAN KINSELLA: The most intellectual book, and get my name right. Let’s say Stephan. Let’s say it. Okay, can you guys say with me Stephanie? Say it with me, Stephanie.
00:00:43
TOM LAIRD: Stephanie.
00:00:44
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay. Take off the E. Stephan.
00:00:47
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Stephan. Did you call him Stephen Kinsella? Did you call him – did you actually call him Stephen Kinsella in the intro?
00:00:55
TOM LAIRD: Who?
00:00:55
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yeah, he did. It’s fine. I’m used to it. I’m used to it.
00:00:59
TOM LAIRD: It you want it pronounced differently, spell it differently.
00:01:03
00:01:05
STEPHAN KINSELLA: You can’t blame someone’s mother – so this is the thing. You can’t blame their mother, man. You’ve got to – there’s boundaries.
00:01:13
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Well, I know. I blame my mom for tons of shit.
00:01:17
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Like what?
00:01:18
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I don’t know if I should say it publicly.
00:01:25
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, then don’t tease us. Come on.
00:01:27
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: My ex-girlfriend blamed my mom’s mom for tons of shit as well.
00:01:33
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Like what? Give me one example, just one.
00:01:36
00:01:39
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I don’t – right at the beginning of the show? There might be new listeners tuning from Twitter. I tell you what. They’ll have to actually start one of those websites where they vote. If 100 people sign the petition, Antony will disclose embarrassing details of the way that his mom scarred him in childhood.
00:01:58
STEPHAN KINSELLA: You are so sweet. You Scottish people are so sweet.
00:02:03
TOM LAIRD: Well, look. It can’t get any more embarrassing than your pimp’s cushion that you’ve got behind you there.
00:02:09
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Do you like that? Look, I’ve got a nice set. For those of you who are on…
00:02:14
STEPHAN KINSELLA: It’s like a – is it a Bengal tiger or what the hell is that?
00:02:18
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: For those of you listening through your podcast app, I am actually setting up against a leopard skin – leopard pillow.
00:02:27
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Do you have a Jabra too? You have a Jabra too. We’re both Jabra – Jabra buddies.
00:02:32
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Jabra. That’s really funny. When I was in college, there was a group of weird jock guys that started calling me Tony Jabroni for some reason just because it rhymed. It doesn’t even mean anything. They just liked it. And now I’m a real jabroni, Jabro. I put the bro in Jabra.
00:02:53
STEPHAN KINSELLA: So when you say you went to college, what did you go to college in?
00:02:56
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Oh God. I didn’t know that I was going to be the interview guest.
00:02:59
TOM LAIRD: Exactly. We’re doing the questions here, Mr. Kinsella.
00:03:02
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, I mean he – you brought it up. It’s a point of interest.
00:03:07
TOM LAIRD: Okay. Antony, you’re going to have to tell us now.
00:03:09
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: These are the golden moments that people listen to Scottish Liberty podcast for. It’s not about the politics. It’s about the banter.
00:03:17
TOM LAIRD: It’s not about that cushion. But anyway, go for it.
00:03:19
00:03:21
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Well, I studied popular music, and then I went and studied music and philosophy, and then I did a post grad in counseling studies.
00:03:30
STEPHAN KINSELLA: So things you could have done without a college degree.
00:03:34
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Well, I mean – yeah, pretty much.
00:03:37
STEPHAN KINSELLA: No. I’m fucking with you but…
00:03:38
TOM LAIRD: He could have.
00:03:38
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Defend yourself. Defend yourself, my brother.
00:03:41
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I wouldn’t have had the – I actually…
00:03:43
TOM LAIRD: The fun and the drinking.
00:03:46
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Yeah. One of my reasons for going was I thought people like me should have a degree. That’s how pretentious I was at 22.
00:03:54
TOM LAIRD: Okay. First question.
00:03:58
STEPHAN KINSELLA: What did you do your degree in?
00:04:01
TOM LAIRD: No, no, no. It’s different.
00:04:02
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait.
00:04:06
STEPHAN KINSELLA: He’s changing subject.
00:04:06
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: What did you do your degree in?
00:04:08
TOM LAIRD: So much for Antony losing his voice.
00:04:13
STEPHAN KINSELLA: His voice is – so it’s just me and you because his voice is out.
00:04:17
TOM LAIRD: Exactly. So first question and it’s an important question.
00:04:19
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I feel bullied.
00:04:20
TOM LAIRD: Considering we were talking about Rush before this started. So the question is why didn’t America get prog rock?
00:04:28
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, I would challenge the assumption. I mean why would you say that it didn’t get prog rock? I mean I think that we did.
00:04:41
TOM LAIRD: Some Americans did, but it didn’t really take off in the way that it took off in Europe or elsewhere. There wasn’t really – it was more kind of niche thing in America I would – that was my take on it. It wasn’t very radio friendly.
00:04:57
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Are you a prog rock guy?
00:04:59
TOM LAIRD: Yeah, I’m a big proggie kind of guy.
00:05:03
STEPHAN KINSELLA: So Rush is like the pinnacle, right? And Yngwie Malmsteen and Triumph and that kind of stuff, right?
00:05:09
TOM LAIRD: Well, Yngwie Malmsteen doesn’t – you’re not getting Yngwie Malmsteen in prog there. I’m not having Yngwie Malmsteen.
00:05:16
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I know. I know. I know. I know. I have a 16-year-old son, and he can school me on everything, but he can’t get his driver’s license without my help. So it’s like a symbiotic thing but…
00:05:30
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: It’s a symbiotic thing except for he’s like the parasite that’s sucking out your will to live with his criticism of every little thing that…
00:05:37
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yeah, but that’s the point of having kids, to have a parasite.
00:05:41
00:05:44
TOM LAIRD: I guess. I guess.
00:05:47
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: So…
00:05:48
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, let’s go back up. What do you mean you guess? That was like a very vague, noncommittal.
00:05:58
TOM LAIRD: I’m sorry. I have to keep you to the subject here. Why doesn’t America…
00:06:03
STEPHAN KINSELLA: You don’t want to go to you.
00:06:06
TOM LAIRD: Why didn’t America get prog in the way that other countries got it?
00:06:10
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I mean why didn’t – I don’t know – Bulgaria get it? I don’t know. Why is America special?
00:06:16
TOM LAIRD: You can believe they got it.
00:06:18
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Really?
00:06:19
TOM LAIRD: Yeah.
00:06:20
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Tell me more.
00:06:21
TOM LAIRD: Okay. So favorite Rush album.
00:06:28
00:06:31
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Probably Permanent Waves.
00:06:33
TOM LAIRD: Permanent Waves. Okay, we’ll go for it.
00:06:35
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Is it the one that goes [guitar sounds]? I love that Rush tune, love that Rush tune.
00:06:44
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Give me 60 more seconds and I’ll tell you.
00:06:49
TOM LAIRD: Gee. You’re a Rush fan, for cryin’ out loud. If you can’t answer these questions, what chance are you going to get when you get to…
00:06:55
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I just want him to embarrass himself. I mean 2112, Moving Pictures, Permanent Waves. Those are the best ones obviously.
00:07:06
TOM LAIRD: Were you a Rush fan before you were a libertarian, or a libertarian after you were a Rush fan or was it…
00:07:12
STEPHAN KINSELLA: It all came together, to be honest. So I had a buddy in like – I was 10th or 11th grade in high school, and I got my first driver’s license, and I got my car. And I had a cassette player in my car, so he was like, Stephan, you need to get A, B, and C, and he’s like a hard rock electric guitar player. So he said – so my first two albums were Queen Greatest Hits and Rush Permanent Waves, and that got me going. And I was crazy after that. So that’s just – I mean it’s boring. I realize after a point it’s boring, but I love Iron Maiden, Rush, Triumph, Ritchie [Blackmore] – there’s so much stuff that’s boring to the people before and after you. Before you, they think it’s not – it’s just not folk, and after you it’s like not sophisticated.
00:08:27
TOM LAIRD: Right.
00:08:27
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Like there’s a certain – everyone comes into it at a certain degree, so I love Triumph and Rush and Ritchie Blackmore, Rainbow, and Iron Maiden and…
00:08:41
TOM LAIRD: Sure.
00:08:41
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Van Halen and all that stuff. That’s what I like.
00:08:44
TOM LAIRD: Only one of those was prog, so that’s back to the – give me an American prog outfit and…
00:08:52
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, I mean I don’t know – I actually don’t know. I don’t pretend to be an expert on this. I just like what I like. I like…
00:09:00
TOM LAIRD: I told you we should have had Tom Woods on again.
00:09:03
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Tom Woods is like – Woods is Woods. What can you say? What do you think? What do you – you tell me the best.
00:09:15
TOM LAIRD: Tom Woods should be down some forest somewhere doing live role play.
00:09:20
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: He looks like the last person to be into the kind of metal he likes with the growling vocals.
00:09:27
STEPHAN KINSELLA: But you know that’s an unfair comparison because everyone can be what they want to be.
00:09:34
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I agree, but I’m just saying that he looks deceivingly like the kind of person who wouldn’t be into that and has quite a conservative demeanor.
00:09:41
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Look, look, look, look, look, look.
00:09:43
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: And he chided me for having long hair.
00:09:44
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Are we going to talk about intellectual property, or are we going to talk about this boring shit.
00:09:47
TOM LAIRD: Wait a minute. I was sinking into that.
00:09:49
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: So he – go on.
00:09:52
TOM LAIRD: Why should I be able to download all of Rush’s albums and then reproduce them and sell them for my own profit? Why should I be able to do that?
00:10:04
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Why should Tom be able to do that?
00:10:07
TOM LAIRD: Why should I be able to profit off of Rush’s work?
00:10:11
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Hard work.
00:10:12
STEPHAN KINSELLA: So – okay, so first of all, notice that you just mixed together two different things.
00:10:18
TOM LAIRD: Okay.
00:10:18
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Why should you download them? Why should you be able to profit? So those are two different questions.
00:10:25
TOM LAIRD: Right.
00:10:25
STEPHAN KINSELLA: And the answer to both is the same in a sense like because you don’t violate anyone’s property rights in doing it. And it’s good for everyone…
00:10:37
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: That’s question begging.
00:10:39
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yeah, I know. I know, and I like when you did that to my enemies, but don’t do it to me.
00:10:46
TOM LAIRD: Well, talking of that, would that – would you be referring to his recent debate where apparently he claims that you were his Mickey from the Rocky movies, like you were his coach?
00:11:03
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Oh my God. Hold on. Let me open up my Mac notes.
00:11:11
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: All right. Okay.
00:11:11
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I have so many notes on this whole topic.
00:11:16
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I think the reason why Stephen said that is I did actually accuse…
00:11:19
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Stephan, not Stephen, but go ahead.
00:11:21
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Now, he got me doing it, Tom, for fuck’s sake.
00:11:26
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Let’s – wait, let’s stop for a second. I’m being – I don’t want to be an asshole.
00:11:31
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: No…
00:11:32
TOM LAIRD: Go on. It’s never – it doesn’t stop us.
00:11:33
STEPHAN KINSELLA: You do know girls named Stephanie, right? Things like that.
00:11:38
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: It’s totally justified.
00:11:41
STEPHAN KINSELLA: How hard can this be?
00:11:42
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: It’s totally justified. I hate it when people call me Anthony.
00:11:45
STEPHAN KINSELLA: No, I don’t – I actually don’t hate it. I’m just – so I’m not confused by it.
00:11:49
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Well, I do actually hate it. So Stephan, I did actually…
00:11:55
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, the problem is your name is Anthony, and people call you Tony or T-Boy or whatever, right?
00:11:59
TIM LAIRD: Ants.
00:12:01
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Ants.
00:12:02
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I don’t like nicknames either.
00:12:03
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Ants. I don’t mind Ants. Ants is kind of cool. My brother calls me that sometimes.
00:12:09
STEPHAN KINSELLA: No one says Ant.
00:12:11
TOM LAIRD: Yeah, they do.
00:12:11
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Ant is lame. Ants is okay with an S on the end.
00:12:15
STEPHAN KINSELLA: All right.
00:12:16
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Well, I think Stephan is referring to the fact that I did actually accuse Adam Mossoff, my interlocutor, of begging the question, which just means circular reasoning for people who think it means the same as invite the question, which I then did to you, Stephan.
00:12:37
00:12:39
TOM LAIRD: So where were we?
00:12:40
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, what I liked about your discussion with him was, number one, he’s a very, very, very – at least with you – a nice guy. Okay, so – but honestly – so here’s what I think. I mean I don’t want to be an asshole. Well, I actually kind of do want to be an asshole.
00:13:01
TOM LAIRD: Well, we don’t care.
00:13:02
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I’ve been doing this show with Tom for four years, and he’s never stopped being one, so you’ll fit right in.
00:13:09
STEPHAN KINSELLA: So you have this guy who’s like being the happy, giddy, warrior who pretends like he’s on our side. And honestly that’s my misgiving about the whole thing. He’s like, oh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. So like – so when you say – like for example, someone in the questions or you or someone brought up if you believe in intellectual property, which is a broad term which includes not only patents but copyrights, patents and trademarks and everything, then that means that you have trademark rights and trade secret rights and everything. It’s not just a narrow thing. And he just giggles like oh ha, ha, ha. If someone says, oh, that means that I can’t say that I’m for COVID A, B, and C, and someone might trademark COVID-19 or whatever and charge you $0.15 per usage. And he goes ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. It’s like, what the fuck are you joking about? You believe this mother-fucking shit, okay? Do you understand?
00:14:33
It’s like it’s not a joke. You’re actually in favor of this, and you know what? If you were a socialist or a Marxist or a commie, that’s one thing because I’m used to being disappointed in these people. But if you’re a liberal, and you’re joking like you’re in favor of patent law, IP law, whatever, and by the way, they never defined it. You notice this.
00:15:06
TOM LAIRD: Right.
00:15:06
STEPHAN KINSELLA: By the way, I have 35 questions in my notes thing we can talk about if you want to. But the point is it’s like, come on, guy. It’s not a joke. So when someone says, oh, according to your theory of IP, I can’t say my name and he giggles, it’s like this is not a joke. This is what you’re in favor of. This is horrible. This is fascist. This is socialist. I mean it’s not a joke.
00:15:47
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Would another example be like if it weren’t for IP laws you could send millions of medications to Africa, cheap, generic medications to Africa and actually save lives, save maybe millions of lives. But you’re not allowed to because of IP.
00:16:04
00:16:06
STEPHAN KINSELLA: What do you mean? I’m actually not sure what you – what the question is.
00:16:10
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Well, in one of the readings you sent me about intellectual property in pharmaceutical industry, it said that people – that lives were being lost in Africa because – lives were being lost in Africa because people couldn’t replicate expensive drugs and send cheap, generic drugs over.
00:16:33
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, why don’t we do this? You were actually, I thought, amazing in your…
00:16:41
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Oh wow.
00:16:41
STEPHAN KINSELLA: …discussion with him. But the problem is in the debate format like this you can’t get the whole theory out there. So he does a modified version of A, B, and C. And you try to respond, and then it’s like this. There’s no way you can get to the bottom of this without a long discussion, which most people don’t have the attention span for. So I guess I could tell you one, two, three, four, five things I noticed in your discussion with Adam.
00:17:27
First of all, you have a way more calm explanation of things than I do. I do go ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba, ba. And you’re like – with your accent and everything, you’re like – and he was all happy. He was all happy-go-lucky. But there was a certain giggling aspect to his responses to you that – which annoyed the fuck out of me to be honest because it’s like saying that there’s a holocaust, and people are in cages. And well – so for example, when someone – like you brought up, for example, or someone did in the question and answer, well, what if someone wants to trademark COVID and you can’t say that for $0.15 royalties or whatever, something like that. And he just started giggling, like yeah, it’s really funny. It’s really funny. It’s really funny, ha, ha, ha, ha.
00:18:38
It’s like, well, you know what? It’s not fucking funny because this is serious. This is what the law actually is. And you’re not distinguishing between trademark and trade secret and patent and copyright law and all the different types of things that you call intellectual property. And every time that you had the chance – so the thing I’m thinking is the debate is not amenable towards – so for example, I mean, Anthony, what do you think was – so he had 10 minutes to give his presentation, right?
00:19:19
And he did something – and basically what he said, and you can correct me if you think I’m wrong. He said that property – IP rights, which are basically patent rights which he never clarified, they are like property rights. That’s what he said, and then he mixed in together incentives and causation and correlation, and by the way, one of the things which he said which you challenged him on, which I admired you for, was that he said, well, you know what? You have a point. Now, he didn’t say it this way, but he said, Anthony, you have a point that we can’t prove causation and correlation. However, even with regular property rights, we can’t prove that having property rights produces wealth.
00:20:21
So, number one, the whole point of his diatribe was something like I guess that law should mirror incentives to do – I mean it’s not clear. He never makes it clear. He mixes together all these things. Now, as – here’s my guess. As an objectivist, what he would say in response is that, oh, you’re right. You’re right. You’re right. You’re right. I’m mixing together all these things because we’re holistic and blah, blah, blah. Like we’re blending incentives and property rights and the fruits of your labor bullshit, all this stuff. He blends it all together. He never makes a clear point.
00:21:08
His entire argument was you can treat IP rights as property rights, and therefore, they have incentive effects. And therefore, there’s a causation/correlation thing. But the only thing that he said that makes sense, which is the causation/correlation thing, which was that if you have more property rights than ideas that you have more wealth, he admitted that even with real property rights, you can never prove this. So he admitted that. He said, well, we can never prove that either. So he’s basically saying that we have a higher level or an ontological basis for property rights. Okay, fine. That’s fine. So is it incentives? Is it – so what’s his theory?
00:22:03
So by the way you notice he never ever, ever, ever, ever defined intellectual property. He never explained why – number one, why trade secrets aren’t included. He never explained – there were so many things he said. He’s a happy, giddy little Randian exponent. I think everything he says is evil and wrong to be honest. He never explains why property rights have to incentivize production. He talks about creation of values. That’s just Randian bullshit. There are so many problems, and I think you found most of them. I’ve got 75 notes I kept on this if you want to go through this, but I’ll stop here. Go ahead.
00:23:01
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Well, okay. I just – one of the things that was frustrating is I think he usually ignored my arguments and just went back to stating his own position, which is, well, we seem to have done well under property rights. And there’s some evidence to believe that intellectual property rights do incentivize innovation, and he just kept on going back to that and not really answering my arguments, which I actually called him out for once and said, well, you’ve not really answered my point. But that was only one time. I mean most of the times he didn’t. But if you want to illustrate – if you want to talk about your notes, I think that would be a good way to give us some content.
00:23:51
TOM LAIRD: Could I just ask…
00:23:52
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Please do.
00:23:53
TOM LAIRD: For maybe – for some people who don’t get the subtleties or don’t get the difference, could you maybe just outline quickly the difference between copyright, patent, trademark?
00:24:04
STEPHAN KINSELLA: So I would be happy to, but this – the problem is that – so you have Adam Mossoff who is some allegedly respected law professor. And honestly, look. The guy seems nice. He’s happy. He’s friendly to Anthony. I mean so everything is fun. But he’s not a patent lawyer. He’s just repeating – honestly, so here’s the problem. I think that most people are not that into theory. I can see what he’s doing. He’s taking Ayn – so he’s a Randian. He’s an objectivist.
00:24:49
Let me be clear. I think this guy is a minarchist, statist Randian, and he is just trying to bridge the gap between both sides. And he is trying to – so he mixes in two, three, four, or five, six arguments: incentives, all this kind of crap, utilitarian. He’s totally unclear. He never defines intellectual property. He never defines it, okay, number one. He never says why the term should be arbitrary. He never says what the term should be.
00:25:29
He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I’m a patent lawyer. I’ve done this for 20, 30 years. I know this is all bullshit. It’s all just – it’s like a tax lawyer or a drug attorney defending a client against a stupid bullshit claim. It’s all bullshit, okay? You do what you gotta do, and you want experts who want to do what you want to – but he’s just trying to – he’s doing what he can to try to – he’s trying to – Ayn Rand, who is his mentor, because he had – he does – he really doesn’t have any deeper theories than that.
00:26:15
I mean Ayn Rand knew literally nothing about intellectual property. She just was a Russian girl who became libertarian-oriented and came to America and loved the American constitution. That’s it, and guess what it says? You should have patents and copyrights. So she came up with some stupid justification for it, and you have some law professor who has never practiced it like I have and who’s just coming up with a justification for it.
00:26:48
TOM LAIRD: Right.
00:26:48
STEPHAN KINSELLA: It makes no sense, and he’s – so here’s what annoyed me about the whole thing. So you guys were joking about – okay, so intellectual property is a term that these guys came up with to unify the entire field of state intrusions onto private law—trademarks, patents, copyright, trade secrets. I can tell you more than anyone listening would know. Trust me, okay?
00:27:19
So you have Mossoff, who knows less than me I guarantee it, and I would do a debate with anyone to see this, saying – so someone says that, oh, well, what if someone trademarked the COVID term, and they said you couldn’t use COVID in your brand name. What did he do? Listen to the video. Watch it. He started giggling like it’s a joke. Hey, guess what, Adam? It’s not a fucking joke. This is serious, okay? So you’re in favor of reputation rights, which he explicitly said.
00:28:00
He’s in favor of trademark rights, defamation law, trade secret law, copyright law, patent law, which they – patent law, which they call IP law. It’s not a joke. Okay, so actually as a matter of fricking legal fact, someone cannot use certain words because they will be put in jail or penalized by the state. This is not a joke. This is not what my fellow liberals believe in. Trust me, okay? This is why it’s disgusting to me. Don’t joke about it. Don’t giggle about it. Don’t be in favor of the state having defamation law, reputation rights, all these laws that will let the state put you in jail or take your property or penalize you because you made a comment—free speech.
00:29:03
So I don’t think it’s a – I don’t think it’s funny. So that’s – I’ll stop ranting, but the reason I get passionate about this is because I really, really, really, really do not view these guys as our fellow allies. They’re not liberals. They’re not in favor of free markets. They want the government – okay, so Adam Mossoff believes in the state. He’s a minarchist or what we call a fucking statist or a mini-statist. It’s not a joke.
00:29:34
These guys want the government to come in and manage and regulate the economy and tell you what you can do and what you can’t do to maximize incentives, seriously. Everything about this was horrific, horrific, horrific except Anthony did a pretty good job defending against it. But these guys are not our allies. This is not liberalism. This is not free markets. This is not competition. I mean what the hell?
00:30:06
TOM LAIRD: Stephan, when – okay, when I’m talking or when you’re talking or when anyone’s talking to an ordinary, average Joe, not your – somebody who’s not familiar with lawyers’ arguments, somebody who’s not familiar with all these terms that you’re talking about. And it seems to them on the face of things that intellectual property rights are there to protect people’s work. That’s what they think, and it’s to protect.
00:30:29
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, fine.
00:30:31
TOM LAIRD: Okay, that’s what they think. So what do you say to somebody like that briefly just to go, okay, here’s why it’s in your interest to get rid of intellectual property laws? Here’s why it benefits you because that’s what everybody wants to know. How does this benefit me? It seems to me on the face of things that these things are beneficial because that’s what I’m told, but what good will it do me to get rid of these things? What – how does it make my life better to get rid of intellectual property law?
00:31:02
STEPHAN KINSELLA: So I appreciate the framing. I appreciate the question, but in the end, the question to me seems like the same kind of question where you say, okay, the world is falling apart. Why shouldn’t I take the COVID reparations payments or whatever the hell they’re doing? Okay, I can’t give you good reason. I mean, okay, if the government gives me $19,000-a-year welfare payments, why shouldn’t I take it? Okay, maybe you should. But the question is a broader question. It’s like what should the government do? What’s the function of government? What’s the function of politics? What’s the function of law? What’s the function of justice? What should justice be? What should property rights be? All these questions. So I guess I would say that it depends upon what your question is. Like if someone asked me should I take this benefit? Should I feed at the trough? If there’s a trough, should I feed at the trough?
00:32:14
TOM LAIRD: Right.
00:32:14
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I don’t know. To me, that’s an epicurean or a philosophical question. But to me, the real question is should there be a trough? And my answer is no. There shouldn’t be a trough.
00:32:30
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I guess people…
00:32:32
STEPHAN KINSELLA: And that’s what IP is. There shouldn’t be a trough.
00:32:35
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Right. So I guess people can’t imagine living in a world where, say, all those shows on Amazon Prime or Netflix – anyone can just – it’s not illegal for anyone to just download them and watch them even though tons of people put all their work into making those shows. And also think, well, why is anyone going to bother putting that much money into all those special effects and directors and producers and distribution and all that stuff if anyone can just download it and watch it?
00:33:12
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Give me 30 seconds, and then I’ll get back to you. You guys can talk. I’ll listen.
00:33:18
TOM LAIRD: Okay.
00:33:19
00:33:22
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: So…
00:33:22
TOM LAIRD: I think it’s worth clarifying, Antony, for maybe those who are mystified as to just exactly what we’re talking about, could you just frame it for us? What was the debate? Who were you debating? Where was it?
00:33:37
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Okay. So I did put it in the podcast feed so anyone who’s not listened yet can go back and listen to it. I was invited to attend a debate with Adam Mossoff who’s – well, he’s apparently an expert on this or someone in the liberty movement obviously. Stephan disputes that he’s in the liberty movement who’s – one of the struggles that I think is…
00:34:05
TOM LAIRD: He looks at him like a fifth columnist.
00:34:07
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: For IP, and – which was quite funny because obviously it’s not actually an area of expertise for me. I just prepared for the debate. So that was – it was a good opportunity. I think I gave him a run for his money though.
00:34:26
TOM LAIRD: Okay.
00:34:26
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I’m back. Sorry about that. Thanks guys. I had to, you know, see a man about a horse. Well, listen. I don’t know who’s listening or who cares but…
00:34:38
00:34:42
TOM LAIRD: I mean the big stumbling point for a lot of people is when they talk about research and development. They go like, who protects that research and development? All the money I just…
00:34:51
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I know. I know. Okay, okay, so first of all – so the issue to me is a question is not an argument. I mean, honestly, I know I say this over and over again and everyone…
00:35:08
TOM LAIRD: No, I get that. But people will ask questions, and if you don’t kind of answer them satisfactorily it…
00:35:15
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yes, but then you get back to activism. So, okay, fine. So you can answer questions, but the questions then have to be formatted into a way that is a real question like a single question that’s not loaded. So to me I will answer any question that’s sincere, genuine, and not loaded and not compound. This is a lawyer thing. Compound means you can’t ask five questions in a row because it’s not serious like rat, rat, rat. It’s rat-a-tat-a-tat. It’s like what do you think about A, B, C, D? It’s like, well, which one do you want me to answer, number one? So it has to be a single question.
00:35:57
TOM LAIRD: And most of them are probably red herrings anyway.
00:35:59
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, that’s the problem is that you can’t ask a loaded question. And so if someone asks me a question like, okay, Stephan, you just said that IP is A, B, and C. How would I make money selling my poems? Okay, now, that’s not a horrible question, but it’s not usually the real question because that wasn’t my argument. My argument wasn’t – so it’s like – so what they’re saying in effect is that, hey, Kinsella. I think that everything that I can imagine that should be promoted by society should be somehow viable economically.
00:36:56
And unless you can explain to me how this will work, I’m going to reject your proposal, so that’s what they’re really saying. So it’s almost like the welfare state argument like, okay, so you libertarians are saying that you don’t support public education and the welfare system. So you tell me how people that are poor are going to make it in society. You tell me. Now, when they say this you tell me, what they’re saying is they’re switching the burden of proof. They’re saying that unless you can guarantee to me that A, B, and C will happen, I’m going to reject your proposal. And so then libertarians bend over backwards and they say, oh, well, I think there will be charity, and there will be A, B, and C. So they try too hard to please these assholes, right?
00:37:57
TOM LAIRD: Right.
00:37:58
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Right? So they’re sort of giving into the – but here’s the thing. What if we switched the burden of proof and we say you tell me – you tell me how social security in America or whatever you have in Europe – how will that guarantee everyone’s going to be taken care of in 45 years? You tell me how that’s going to guarantee that. And they’ll say, well, well, well – they won’t know. They have no fucking idea, right?
00:38:29
TOM LAIRD: Right.
00:38:31
STEPHAN KINSELLA: So it’s like, well, that’s not – so that’s not the real question. So do they want a guarantee? And if they want a guarantee, guess what? That’s not coming.
00:38:40
TOM LAIRD: Buy a toaster.
00:38:41
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Right.
00:38:43
STEPHAN KINSELLA: There’s no guarantee coming.
00:38:45
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I like it.
00:38:46
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Anyway, sorry. I’m ranting, ranting, ranting, guys.
00:38:51
TOM LAIRD: If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.
00:38:52
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I see where you’re coming from. I just think that most people have a sense that it’s unfair if I go take my guitar to an open mic and afterward some salubrious bastard is like, oh Ant, man, that was a really great tune. Is that one of yours? I’m like yeah, yeah, I’ve been working on it. And he’s like, hmm, hmm. And next week I see him on top of the pops…
00:39:15
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, you don’t want…
00:39:15
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: …having stolen my song.
00:39:18
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I think they do have that view, but they also have a view that capitalism is unfair and that – and you know what? Maybe people need to just…
00:39:27
TOM LAIRD: No but – no but wait, wait, wait, Stephan. Some of the most ardent proponents I know of intellectual property aren’t capitalists. They’re leftists, and they hate all other kinds of – oh yeah, sure, actual physical property. That’s theft, man. But if you take my song or my painting or my dance-fucking routine and you copy it, then I’m going to sue your ass in about 10 different courts. So these are people that you would normally associate with, oh, property is theft, but as soon as it comes down to intellectual property they’re full on. No, no, no, that’s different. That’s my stuff. I’m an artist, and that’s my stuff. You don’t get to get my stuff. So it’s not just capitalists who are – who come out with this kind of stuff.
00:40:21
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Oh no. I agree that the – that criticisms of IP are like – they’re all over the map. So I actually almost don’t want to associate with the people that are against IP because half of them are against intellectual property because they’re against property. So they make the same mistake that – I want to say the capitalists. But – so they associate capitalism with property rights, and so because they’re in favor – because they’re opposed to copyrights in land and monopolies, they oppose patent rights and things like that too.
00:41:06
The other thing is most people don’t even under IP law. It’s very, very – it’s like if you and I and Anthony and two or three other people had a long debate about anti-trust law or competition law as you call it in Europe, and no one’s a lawyer except maybe me. But it’s like – but you could have an opinion. You could have some economically informed opinions, but basically it’s going to be like a hop-scob just scramble of opinions. People don’t know what they’re talking about. They’re just talking about things they don’t know they’re – what they mean, right? And I just…
00:41:50
TOM LAIRD: How do you define intellectual property? Sorry Stephan.
00:41:55
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, and that – to me that’s a good question, and so here’s the thing. So I have a bunch of notes which I could go through about Anthony’s debate with Adam, which I – so Anthony I think you did as good as you could. The problem with these debates is so he had 10 minutes. You had 10 minutes and then back and forth. And in his – so I will notice this. So you can’t do a good justification in 10 minutes either way.
00:42:28
But in your 10 minutes at least you tried to distinguish between scarce and non-scarce resources. You made the point that you can’t copy A, B, and C, or it’s not a taking or whatever. Mossoff never – as far as I can tell never ever even tried to make a coherent argument. He basically kept saying that it’s property, which to me is a legal positive argument. It’s the government treats it as property, and then once it’s property you can trade it. And even you pointed out, Anthony, well, we’re living in the given system. That’s why people do this. That’s perfectly true. I mean I don’t – you don’t want to bring up slavery or the Holocaust or whatever because then you’ll be dismissed. But honestly there’s no limit to this kind of reasoning. Human slaves were property, so the fact that…
00:43:32
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I wish I had made that point.
00:43:34
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, but the format of this debate doesn’t lend itself towards that kind of systematic getting to the point. But the problem for me was that Mossoff was a nice guy. He seems like he’s a liberal. He agreed with you on half of your points, which made sense, like about how the FD – I hate to use the US system because I hate being US-centric but like the FDA system or whatever the drug approval system is in other countries.
00:44:10
It biases things in a certain direction, and it imposes cost. So if you’re – if that’s your concern, just reduce those costs or whatever or the minimum wage or A, B, and C. And he would cheerfully admit to that, but when you guys brought up examples – so here’s the problem. There’s no such thing as intellectual property. I mean – and the whole question is on intellectual property, and the whole question is not property. The whole question is not what is property. Oh, and by the way, while I’m rat-a-tatting things off, I will say, Anthony, what I liked is how you are calmly like – calmly A, B, C. I can’t do that. I just can’t do that. That’s just not my nature, but that was good, like A, B, C.
00:45:06
TOM LAIRD: I’ve yet to see this exchange.
00:45:08
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Well, if you see it, you’ll see what I mean. He was like just calmly responding. Now, the problem is the format doesn’t enable itself – doesn’t allow a comprehensive case to be made either way. And the big problem is I think – and now I think that the objectivists and whatever would – they would think it’s the other way around. They would think that the problem is that we’re giving credence to the unprincipled types like Anthony, like – you have no real, clear principle grounds, and so we’re gaining to consort with you. I think it’s the other way around. I think that the assumption that you have a guy that is in favor of so-called capitalism like Mossoff or Ayn Rand or those types.
00:46:13
And they just make assertions that, well, if you’re in favor of capitalism then you must be in favor of a way of exploiting the fruit of your labors. They throw these terms around, by the way. So this is another thing I noticed. And as an engineer, as a rigorous thinker, these guys – number one, Mossoff doesn’t now much about patent law. I have actually prosecuted 1000 patent applications for big companies. I actually understand the patent system. I’m not saying that’s a prerequisite because I think you can have a reasonable view without it.
00:46:58
But he’s – he drops these things. For example, so as a law professor – so for example, my view as a lawyer, as a legal theorist, I have never been one of these types that thinks that if you have certain credentials you have certain pride of place and you can say certain things and you can’t if not. Everything Anthony says he’s entitled to say. But then you have Mossoff dropping a couple of legal doctrines which are, number one, US-specific, which annoys the hell out of me because America is not the goddamn world.
00:47:45
And number two, I don’t think he – it’s like – it’s irrelevant. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. So for – I wrote – I mean I’ve got so many pages of notes I could go through if we had time. But as an – as just an example, so he said something near the end like a-ha ha. So, number one, he’s giggling the whole time, but he’s giggling about things he’s in favor of. So when someone says, oh because of trademark law, which you support which is part of IP law, I couldn’t actually use this term of COVID, whatever, without paying a royalty, and he just giggles. It’s like, this is not a joke. You support this stuff. This is actually real.
00:48:39
This is actually really a real restriction on human liberty and can affect human fortunes and the way human discourse goes, so stop giggling. Okay, stop joking about it. You’re in favor of this stuff. Take ownership of it, and admit that you’re a fascist or whatever the fuck it is, but stop giggling about it. It’s not a joke. So Anthony, you were being good-spirited, but this is not a joke. I mean you’re opposing this stuff to your credit. This guy is in favor of it. What the hell? Don’t joke about it. Don’t giggle about it. So then he just had some – he dropped some comment like, oh well, actually no.
00:49:25
In the law, leases are actually real property. They’re not contracts. It’s like, first of all, this guy doesn’t know what the – he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s just some amateur guy at George Mason who’s – who got his way in, and that’s fine. But I’m telling you I can give you links. I can give you case citations. I can give you legal theory, whatever. Trust me. There’s a whole debate in the literature, which he seems completely unaware of, about the difference between lease and contract.
00:50:09
In other words, if you have a mineral lease or if you have any other kind of lease, is it a contract, or is it a property right, an in rem right or an in personam right? Okay, interesting question for the fucking legal positivist. Hey, guess what? I’m not. I’m a libertarian. I recognize the difference, but I’m not trying to – so, number two, I’ve actually practiced and I’ve actually written actual real contracts, and I’ve actually done real patents many times.
00:50:42
So this whole issue of in personam versus – sorry, leases versus real, okay, guess what? Louisiana and other states in America, some of them treat it like a real property interest, which we call in rem. Some call it in personam, which we call contract. But the only way to really sort this out is to have a unified version of contract and property law and, and, and to be actually—guess what—a libertarian, like a Rothbardian. Rothbard pioneered the whole theory of contract law, and I hadn’t sorted it out yet, but I think I’m closer than anyone I know personally, and that’s fine. But you can’t just cite positive law legal doctrines like they do, which is what they do. So this is their whole argument for IP. Here’s their argument for IP. It’s like real property, which you noticed many times, Anthony. It’s like it. It’s like it. It’s similar. There’s similarities. So what? So what?
00:51:57
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Yeah, a few times in the debate, he shot himself in the foot by referring to non-intellectual property as real property, and I kind of wanted to suddenly remark, oh, so you admit that intellectual property isn’t real property, but I…
00:52:13
TOM LAIRD: I guess what he meant was physical property.
00:52:16
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I know what he meant, but it was just quite a funny turn of phrase.
00:52:19
STEPHAN KINSELLA: No, but I think you’re – so I think the format didn’t lend itself towards you’re giving yourself a totally systematic view but…
00:52:27
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: So can I ask you a question on that…
00:52:29
STEPHAN KINSELLA: The one thing you focused on was – wait, let me say one thing. The one thing you focused on, which I like, was that you kept saying over and over again listen. If you take my property, I don’t have it anymore. That’s the whole point of everything. And so if you notice, by the way, one thing Mossoff said was he admitted – he sort of admitted you were correct when you said that you can’t prove causation and correlation. You can’t prove that IP rights are the cause of prosperity in the west. His response was not to argue against you.
00:53:14
His response was to say that, well, we can’t know this about property rights in general. That’s what he said. If you go back and listen, it was stunning to me. So what he said was, well, we can’t know this either. So what he’s admitting is that we don’t – our argument for these principles is not an incentive-based or a utilitarian one. In other words, we’re not in favor of property rights because we know that they will lead to better consequences. It’s for other reasons. So that’s what he implicitly admitted. In other words, we’re in favor of property rights for what you said, Anthony, like we have to solve conflicts among scarce resources.
00:54:01
And that doesn’t apply to ideas. And by the way, notice that he did this kind of weird, crabby argument like, oh well, some of us sometimes say ideas, but that’s colloquial, but we don’t really mean ideas. We mean implementation. I mean I’m a patent lawyer, dude. What he’s saying makes no sense, and he’s not a patent lawyer, by the way, so distinguishing between ideas and the implementation of ideas is just complete positivist. What the hell does it have to do with Austrian economics, libertarian principles, property rights? Nothing. Sorry. Rant over.
00:54:45
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: So you said that the debate platform did not provide an ideal platform to give a comprehensive response. What should I have said that I didn’t if we were doing a show that was in a format that was – that lent itself to that? What didn’t I include that I would have been able to include if it was possible?
00:55:15
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I mean I think that if you had known ahead of time what he was going to say you could have prepared a couple of zingers or whatever. But honestly probably nothing. I think you did as well as you could in the friendly – and I think – and I – by the way, I agree with Adam. He seemed like a nice guy. He seems sincere. Honestly, I think he’s just a Randian. He just is doing whatever the hell he can to rehabilitate her completely insane IP views. That’s what he’s doing, but he doesn’t know what he’s doing. I mean he’s just a law professor. He’s smart. He’s like blah, blah, blah. But I don’t think you could have done anything differently to be honest. I mean if I could fault you, I wouldn’t fault you. I would just give you some constructive criticism.
00:56:13
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: That’s what I meant.
00:56:14
STEPHAN KINSELLA: But I really can’t because all I can say is, okay, if you have 10 minutes and you know what he’s going to say do the following. But I think you hit the high points as best as you could. And I’ll notice this too. Adam Mossoff – I think you called him doctor at one point. I don’t know if he’s a doctor, so I would be careful about giving people credits that they don’t deserve. He’s just a lawyer, which is a JD, which is all bullshit. And he’s – has no experience in actual patent laws as far as I can tell, whatever. So I’m not that impressed by this dude, but he’s cheery and giggly.
00:57:02
Okay, so give him that. He’s cheery and giggly, and he’s got probably five little things he could put on his resume that he’s like the ad hoc advisor to this following group that’s in favor of IP. Okay, all that means is you’re a goddamn Randian, and you’re trying to do whatever you can to rehabilitate. I mean so here’s what I would have done. So there’s probably two or three or four things I would have done, probably most of them only if I’d seen what happened after the fact. But, number one, I would have asked him. Okay, what about Ayn Rand’s clear, clear, clear views on the fact that you only own a scarce resource in that when you rearrange things it does increase the value of the things you own?
00:57:56
But you don’t own the property value and the rearrangement rights. I would have asked him that because Ayn Rand clearly was conflicted. Listen, I’m not an Ayn Rand asshole. I don’t blame Ayn Rand for not getting A, B, and C correct. She got – or everything correct. She got A, B, and C and D and E, F, G correct. That’s pretty good. But she got confused on IP. Okay, not a big problem for me because I don’t learn IP from Ayn Rand. It’s really not a big problem. But Adam Mossoff apparently does. Do you follow me?
00:58:33
TOM LAIRD: Yeah.
00:58:34
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Right.
00:58:35
STEPHAN KINSELLA: This is not a big problem. I mean Ayn Rand was totally confused. When Ayn Rand wrote on IP in 1962 or 5 or whenever it was, she thought mistakenly – Ayn Rand believed that the American – okay, I hate to go to America. But she was in America. That’s what she was thinking. She thought the American IP system, the patent system, was a first-to-file system, which meant that the first guy that files for a patent would win. And everyone said why can that be just? How can that be just? Libertarians were like, how can you really be in favor of this? It makes no sense. This is not natural law. And Ayn Rand said, well, and blah, blah, blah. She came up with some stupid, totally horrible argument for it. The point is she was wrong at the time, and until about 19 – I’m sorry, about 2008, until Obama with the America Invents Act, the US had a first-to-invent system. We didn’t have a first to file. So she didn’t even understand the law, so she was defending a law that didn’t exist. Do you understand?
00:59:55
TOM LAIRD: Yeah.
00:59:56
STEPHAN KINSELLA: So she mistakenly believed that in America and in the west the first guy to file would get a patent, which is the case.
01:00:08
TOM LAIRD: I think that’s the case in the UK is first to file.
01:00:12
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yeah, it is. It’s the case in the US now, but it wasn’t the case in 1962 when she wrote. It’s the case since 2008. My point is she had no idea what she was talking about. She just basically took for granted this is the American system. I’m going to defend it no matter what. I’m going to come up with a justification for it or rationale. And her rationale was, well, it makes sense that the first – and so you’ll see that in Anthony’s discussion with Mossoff, Mossoff was saying, well, it’s just – he kept saying this over and over again. It’s just like. It’s just like. It’s just like. It’s just like. It’s just like a property system, like oh, if so – and I thought Anthony’s response was really good.
01:00:59
So he said, well, if two guys are on the Mayflower coming to the US – well, to the western hemisphere, and one guy gets there first, he gets it all. And Anthony’s like, no, it’s not a winner-take-all thing. One guy can just go up the stream. And by the way, if they were all going for one little tiny island, it might be similar, but that’s actually not what happened, so it was a bad example. So Anthony was right. So everything you said was correct, so you’re better than a law professor who has this prestige and doesn’t…
01:01:35
TOM LAIRD: Don’t tell him that please.
01:01:36
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I’m going to get it printed on my business card.
01:01:40
STEPHAN KINSELLA: If I had to take a student on board, I would take Anthony over this law professor at GMU who has never filed a single patent, and I would – anyway.
01:01:54
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: That’s just nepotism, Stephen – Stephan for – crikey. So I’m just going to put that on my business cards from now on. Antony Sammeroff, better than a law professor. So any highlights from your notes?
01:02:13
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Oh, let me see. I’ve given you some already. Let’s see here what I got here that I haven’t mentioned yet because you know how I am. I go…
01:02:23
TOM LAIRD: What do we have in the background there? Is that downtown Houston?
01:02:27
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Oh, that’s just – that is Houston, but it’s just like – okay, let me see here. Okay, so – okay, let’s talk about this one thing. So he talked about price controls. Maybe we can go into that, and I can explain it to you guys and we can talk about it if you want. So he talked about the export of American IP to other countries.
01:02:57
TOM LAIRD: Right.
01:02:58
STEPHAN KINSELLA: And by the way, I don’t think the US is the end-all, be-all. I don’t think we’re the only one that makes IP and whatever or pharmaceuticals. But okay, so his idea is that – so here’s his idea. I’m simplifying it, and he would probably object, and he’s probably right, but I’m simplifying it. So here’s his idea. We have this spectrum of countries, and by the way, he admitted that we’re not perfect, and we have regulations and the FDA, and we have everything. So I don’t even understand this kind of Randian worship of the west, but whatever.
01:03:38
So here’s what happens. Guys, feel free to interrupt at any point. So here’s what happens. So western pharmaceutical companies try to come up with drugs that will solve problems. I don’t disagree with that. No one disagrees with that. So these guys don’t get credit for this because, guess what? Just because we’re not in favor of the patent system we’re also in favor of capitalism—whatever. But – so here’s the idea. They have to go through this gauntlet of the FDA system, which has unimaginable costs, which he admitted to and which you pointed out, Anthony. And so then they can only sell these – so this is what he said. If you listen to his – it was actually striking I thought if you listen to what he said.
01:04:38
He said that you can only sell to the west, to basically the US. So what he said was if you sell to Canada or Europe or other countries, they will impose price controls. And you can only sell it for an amount that you’re willing to sell it for, but you can’t – he said this many times. You can’t recoup your costs. Notice this. You can’t recoup your costs. Now, what the hell kind of libertarian, free market principle is this? Are you entitled to recoup your goddamn costs? What the fuck is he talking about? So what he’s saying is that – so here’s what’s going on. So you have an American pharmaceutical company.
01:05:31
They come up with a new pharmaceutical. They get it approved after 17 years or 7 years or whatever the hell it is after $800 million of cost. And they finally get it approved. And in the meantime they’ve had to – and by the way, every discussion you guys had about trade secrets none of you guys – I mean I’m not being critical of you. But you don’t understand how the industry works: NDAs, trade secrets, the relationship between trade secrets, trademarks, copyrights, patents, the whole thing. This is the problem with the whole idea of IP is like using intellectual property as an umbrella term, which blurs everything. Okay, but forget that for a second. Okay, so you have these companies that come up with these new formulations, and they finally come out with something that’s approved by the government after a lot of cost. And then they…
01:06:31
01:06:34
TOM LAIRD: They put it on the market.
01:06:35
STEPHAN KINSELLA: They get to sell them, but at that point they’ve already revealed their secrets because they have to as part of the FDA approval process. So all their competitors are ready to compete with them at this last second, which, again, as a libertarian I’m not that against except I guess in a free market you can use trade secrets to stop that. But they can’t because the whole system has distorted everything. And even Mossoff even admitted that. He even said that if we didn’t have the FDA maybe. It’s like yeah, but then why aren’t you just focusing on that? Why do you want to add on a layer of government – and his whole argument about monopolies was completely bullshit. Anyway so…
01:07:23
TOM LAIRD: I’m guessing though that his point, even though clumsily made, was that America – or an American company comes up with a drug, a life-saving drug. They market it. It’s not that they have a God-given right to recoup their costs, but if they’re not confident that they can…
01:07:45
STEPHAN KINSELLA: No, I totally – oh sorry. I totally disagree with you. I think he does believe there’s a God-given right to recoup your costs, but go ahead.
01:07:54
TOM LAIRD: Right. Okay but to put it another way then, if I can’t, if I can’t, if I don’t have confidence that I’m going to recoup my costs, then that makes me less likely to invest.
01:08:08
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay, so first of all, I totally agree with this, but on the other hand, when did it become a principle of liberty and capitalism and liberalism that the whole purpose of our system was to make sure people can “recoup their costs?” What the – when did this come about? It’s like…
01:08:28
TOM LAIRD: No, but it’s – as an individual when you’re – if you’re in business, then if – I think he’s talking from a Randian point of view.
01:08:36
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yeah, yeah, yeah, but hold on.
01:08:37
TOM LAIRD: It’s self-interest.
01:08:40
STEPHAN KINSELLA: But the point of doing activity is not to recoup your costs. It’s to make a profit. So where did this become the standard in the first place?
01:08:48
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Well, the base of our argument…
01:08:51
TOM LAIRD: Well, then it’s going to – if I can’t recoup my costs then the chances of making a profit may be somewhat…
01:08:56
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. I know. But that’s like saying that if some company that’s a venture – okay, if they’re going to go bankrupt, so what? What does that mean?
01:09:07
TOM LAIRD: I don’t care, but I care if it’s my company.
01:09:12
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Of course. Of course you care, and of course, and if the government will give you a monopoly then you will take advantage of it.
01:09:19
TOM LAIRD: So I’m guessing his point is why would I invest huge amounts of money…
01:09:23
STEPHAN KINSELLA: But that’s not – hold on. Hold on. Hold on. That’s not – you just said why would I? That’s a question. That’s a fine question. But that’s not a point. Let’s be clear. Asking a question is not a point.
01:09:36
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Well, I guess the point is we should have patents because if we don’t people will not spend 2.4 billion or whatever the (indiscernible_01:09:45).
01:09:46
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Exactly, but no one would ever say that because that’s ridiculous. So what they would say instead was they would – so here’s what they would say instead. So here’s what they would say. They would say this. They would say this. They would say that in a – in some kind of equilibrium tenting market or whatever, there is an underproduction of innovation because of free rider problems and other problems. And there’s a market failure, and the government needs to come in and tweak things and make them slightly better. And it will cost something, but the cost will be way less than the advantage we get from imposing.
01:10:27
TOM LAIRD: Okay.
01:10:28
STEPHAN KINSELLA: So that’s what their argument is. But they don’t want to make it this explicitly because if they do that then they have the fucking burden of proof, which they don’t want to prove, which you notice in our whole thing they said, well, the – I think Mossoff said to Anthony the burden of proof is on you. He tried to switch it. Did you notice that?
01:10:48
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: I did.
01:10:49
STEPHAN KINSELLA: This is the whole point of this entire way of framing things is to change the burden of proof. And it’s changed the burden of what is the purpose of law and justice and social organization? So that’s kind of my perspective on it. I’m not trying to ramble, but that is my – that literally is my perspective on all this.
01:11:17
TOM LAIRD: Right.
01:11:17
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Does that make sense?
01:11:21
TOM LAIRD: It does in the way you’ve put it.
01:11:24
01:11:26
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Any more major points before we wrap up?
01:11:29
TOM LAIRD: No. I’m going to – well, I’m going to ask one thing. I saw a – well, there’s two questions that arise out of a Q&A session that I saw you do before. And if I can just find my note here, you recommended – and this is way back. This is in 2010 or something like that. You recommended a book called Against Intellectual Monopoly, and I think it was by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine. That’s a long time ago. Is there anything since then that you would recommend? Does anything surpass that in terms of its content, or can you even remember that far back?
01:12:18
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Oh, I remember. It’s Michele Boldrin who’s a French guy, and David Levine.
01:12:26
TOM LAIRD: Yeah.
01:12:27
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I mean we’re friends. I’m an admirer of their work. I think they have surpassed it slightly with a recent paper.
01:12:38
TOM LAIRD: Right.
01:12:39
STEPHAN KINSELLA: About three, four, five years later about patent law where they – so my understanding is this. So these guys are utilitarians, which I oppose their entire methodology to be honest. I don’t think that’s how you solve these issues. You can’t solve them this way. But they did basically examine the entire case for IP on its own terms, and they were careful. And I think they were actually moderate-leaning IP or something like that when they started, but then their investigation showed them that, Jesus, everything is like – everything is bad. Everything turns out negative. Now, they ended up in their first book – I mean from my point of view it’s fairly moderate. From the average point of view it’s pretty radical. They basically said we should get rid of most IP, and maybe we should replace it with a system of government-subsidized research grants.
01:13:52
TOM LAIRD: Right.
01:13:54
STEPHAN KINSELLA: And as a libertarian, as a holistic thinker, I’m like, oh, now you messed the whole thing up. But at least they’re better than the other guys because they at least admitted A, B, and C are wrong. And then their later paper about five years later, which I can give you the link to – I think it’s called The Case Against Patents. It’s really clear. It’s just on patents, not copyrights, but they kind of – so they even dropped that. They’re basically like, uh yeah. So even from a utilitarian point of view, I think that they’re like, dude, we have to give up patent. The world would be a better place if we gave up patent and copyright. Now, their argument is not the same as mine. Mine is more Austrian, Rothbardian, libertarian, propertarian, whatever you want to call it. Mine is more justice-based. There’s no excuse for using force against someone for copying other people’s ideas, and in fact, I think…
01:15:02
TOM LAIRD: It’s a deontological argument then.
01:15:04
STEPHAN KINSELLA: I don’t know. I mean other people can characterize it.
01:15:11
TOM LAIRD: Okay.
01:15:13
STEPHAN KINSELLA: But it’s not utilitarian. I wouldn’t say it’s opposed to consequentialsts because I think consequentialism and principled or deontological arguments converge. But that’s just my view. That’s just my view. Anyway, no, you’re right. So that book – those guys are the best on that side.
01:15:36
So what amazes me is that they’re – so they are like 1000 people on their side, but none of them or very few of them come to their conclusions even though if you honestly just followed their own methodology and went down their path you would come to their conclusions. But they just want to come up with a reason to – so here’s the basic idea. I’m in favor of innovation. I’m in favor of ideas because I’m not a dumbass sitting in a hut. I like ideas. Therefore, I favor property rights in ideas. This is how they think. Basically if you’re in favor of ideas, you have to be in favor of property rights in ideas. And if you’re against property rights in ideas, which is IP law, they will attack you as being anti-intellectual. It’s crazy. I mean the whole thing is crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy.
01:16:45
01:16:47
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: All right. With that crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, I think we’ll wrap up for the day because we’ve gone over an hour. Thank you so much, Stephan, for joining us.
01:17:01
STEPHAN KINSELLA: Thank you guys. I appreciate it. Sorry for – I wander. When I talk, I walk. So I – my wife wonders why I wander around the house, but I’ve been wandering around while I talk.
01:17:15
TOM LAIRD: That’s fair enough.
01:17:16
STEPHAN KINSELLA: But I appreciate it.
01:17:17
TOM LAIRD: Okay.
01:17:17
ANTONY SAMMEROFF: Well, I thank you very much for joining us on the show and hope to speak to you again.
(The copyright license printed on this edition of Hoppe’s book is factually and legally incorrect: its contents, including my Afterword, are not licensed under a CC-BY-NC-ND license, despite what the copyright notice says. To be clear: I hereby grant a CC0 license in this Afterword and, if that grant fails to be legally enforceable for any reason, I hereby grant a CC-BY license as a fallback, and as a second fallback I hereby estop myself and any legal heirs from asserting copyright in this work.)
This is my appearance on the Nate the Voluntaryist Livestream #202, released March 15, 2021 (Nate’s Bitchute channel). Shownotes: “Stephan Kinsella is back for more about Hoppe and who will succeed him in the world of Austrian economics, plus a Q&A.”
I was on Aleks Svetski’s show Wake Up, Ep. 37. Youtube:
From his shownotes:
Stephan Kinsella is a Patent Attorney in Texas, Austrian AnCap philosopher, writer & hands down one of the smarter & most well-read people I’ve ever spoken to. [continue reading…]
Jed Grant and I appeared on the World Crypto Network channel with host Thomas Hunt to discuss the looming patent threat to bitcoin. Jed is Founder of the Open Crypto Alliance, for which I serve on the Advisory Board.
Shownotes:
Patents help protect the intellectual property of inventors and creators, but on occasion those same creators choose to make their works available to everyone, free of charge. Unfortunately, some predatory entities, known as patent trolls, prey on the users of these technologies through the civil courts. Their latest target? Cryptocurrency and blockchain technology, which is why blockchain industry leaders and legal experts – including today’s guests, Stephan Kinsella & Jed Grant – have come together to form the Open Crypto Alliance, a group dedicated to preserving cryptocurrency & bitcoin technology’s open-source origins.
Recent Comments