From today’s Mises Blog:
Introduction to Libertarian Legal Theory
January 3, 2011 by Mises Daily [edit]
Libertarianism is both old and new. It is rooted in ancient ideas of natural justice, fairness, peace, and cooperation. You could even say that any civilized society is already somewhat libertarian. After all, civilization requires peace and cooperation. FULL ARTICLE by Stephan Kinsella
For more on the course, see the linked picture below:
[TLS]
From a recent facebook conversation:
Question: What do you think of selling nothingness? For example, ebay no longer allows you to sell your soul (though you can sell a contract for your soul). But ebay policy aside, what do you think of the legal status of selling nonexistent things?
9 hours ago · · · See Friendship
That said, there can also be unilateral contracts: A transfers money to B based on the occurrence of an uncertain (or even certain) future event (called aleatory in civil law). This is how I view all service “sales”–there is not really a sale of service, but rather the performance of the service by B is the trigger that causes the unilateral transfer of the money from A to B.
Now, I suspect that these selling-soul or whatever things can be reclassified as really service contracts: A agrees to pay B $100 IF B performs specified actions (like signing a piece of paper that purports formally to transfer a soul). If that is really all that A and B are specifying as the service or action to be performed, then that would trigger the money. It depends on what they meant. If they mean some formal actions B has to go thru and that is sufficient, then it would suffice. If it means actually handing over a soul to A, then it would not trigger the transfer of money from A to B.
I always put myself in the position of third parties (including judges). The soul-thing is obviously not at issue; only the money is. They need to know who owns it: A or B. Now, either A or B is the possessor. Maybe A handed it over; maybe not. Whoever holds it, the other one may dispute it and claim it: maybe A wants his payment back when he realizes what a stupid deal he made; maybe A refuses to pay and B demands payment. Third parties need to know who is the owner. Maybe a judge is asked to decide. These third parties can only look at objective evidence and how it conforms to customary standards of contracting. If A and B are dumbasses and engaged in such a mess of contradictory, confusing communications of their “intent,” what is a third party to do? At some point they throw their hands up and resort to some default rule of thumb, like, “the current possessor wins” or maybe “A gets to keep the money if the contract is too confusing or vague.” Whatever the third parties decide, I don’t feel sorry for the loser of A and B; they caused this screwed up situation.
The Mises Institute has just published I Chose Liberty: Autobiographies of Contemporary Libertarians (compiled by Walter Block; Mises Institute 2010). It contains my own entry, “Being a Libertarian” (previoulsy published as How I Became A Libertarian, December 18, 2002, LewRockwell.com).
[TLS crosspost]
From LRC:
Tom, you’re right that military spending should not be based on GDP. Unfortunately, and somewhat paradoxically, as Hoppe has argued, countries (especially larger countries) that have relatively liberal internal economic policies tend to be richer, and thus their states tend to be more militarily powerful, and thus more aggressive, than states of developing or smaller countries. Only the US, with a $14 trillion GDP that could only result from a large, relatively free internal market, could afford to squander $3 trillion on the Iraq war (on top of untold trillions for the recent bailouts), for example. This doesn’t mean we should hope the state destroys the economy, though I suppose its ensuing reduced ability to wage war would be a silver lining; but it does provide another reason why decentralization is good: it leads to smaller states, with a reduced ability to wage war.
Update:
Here is the Hoppe quote, explaining why the relatively rich, Western countries, which have relatively liberal internal economic policies, would tend to be militarily more powerful, and thus more aggressive, than developing states:
The need for a productive economy that a warring state must have also explains why it is that ceteris paribus those states which have adjusted their internal redistributive policies so as to decrease the importance of economic regulations relative to that of taxation tend to outstrip their competitors in the arena of international politics. Regulations through which states either compel or prohibit certain exchanges between two or more private persons as well as taxation imply a non-productive and/or non-contractual income expropriation and thus both damage homesteaders, producers or contractors [i.e., those that cause wealth to come into existence]. However, while by no means less destructive of productive output than taxation, regulations have the peculiar characteristic of requiring the state’s control over economic resources in order to become enforceable without simultaneously increasing the resources at its disposal. In practice, this is to say that they require the state’s command over taxes, yet they produce no monetary income for the state (instead, they satisfy pure power lust, as when A, for no material gain of his own, prohibits B and C from engaging in mutually beneficial trade). On the other hand, taxation and a redistribution of tax revenue according to the principle “from Peter to Paul,” increases the economic means at the government’s disposal at least by its own “handling charge” for the act of redistribution. Since a policy of taxation, and taxation without regulation, yields a higher monetary return to the state (and with this more resources expendable on the war effort!) than a policy of regulation, and regulation with taxation, states must move in the direction of a comparatively deregulated economy and a comparatively pure tax-state in order to avoid international defeat.
See also Hoppe, The Paradox of Imperialism:
This explains, for instance, why Western Europe came to dominate the rest of the world rather than the other way around. More specifically, it explains why it was first the Dutch, then the British and finally, in the 20th century, the United States, that became the dominant imperial power, and why the United States, internally one of the most liberal states, has conducted the most aggressive foreign policy, while the former Soviet Union, for instance, with its entirely illiberal (repressive) domestic policies has engaged in a comparatively peaceful and cautious foreign policy. The United States knew that it could militarily beat any other state; hence, it has been aggressive. In contrast, the Soviet Union knew that it was bound to lose a military confrontation with any state of substantial size unless it could win within a few days or weeks.
A few weeks ago my wife and I tried this Williams-Sonoma recipe: Slow-Cooker Shepherd’s Pie. It’s really good. We have some family coming to visit from Louisiana, so we are making it tomorrow for Christmas day.
For Sunday we have more family and friends coming over for dinner, and are going to cook Amarone Osso Bucco, and some wild mushroom risotto. For appetizer: Ralph & Kacoo’s Stuffed Mushrooms–super delicious. I used to go to Ralph & Kacoo’s in Baton Rouge when I was in high school and college and eat that as a meal. My favorite stuffed mushrooms. For dessert: Mississippi Mud Pie.
And for brunch Sunday we will make Michael’s Breakfast Casserole.
Some of my other favorite recipes:
My LRC post:
I’m getting this new book, The Wall: Growing Up Behind the Iron Curtain, for my 7-year old for Christmas. What’s interesting is how we are approaching some of the horrid aspects of communist Czechoslovakia. From the Publisher’s Weekly review:
Starred Review. Born out of a question posed to Sís (Play, Mozart, Play!) by his children (Are you a settler, Dad?), the author pairs his remarkable artistry with journal entries, historical context and period photography to create a powerful account of his childhood in Cold War–era Prague. Dense, finely crosshatched black-and-white drawings of parades and red-flagged houses bear stark captions: Public displays of loyalty—compulsory.
Like the Pledge of Allegiance many kids are forced to recite. Like the oath of loyalty to the Constitution lawyers have to give to get admission to practice law. Like the obligation to put your hand over your heart at sporting events when they sing the Star Spangled Banner. Like the way the glassy-eyed brainwashed masses Proudly Stand Up! when the cloying, horrible Lee Greenwood song God Bless the USA is played on the 4th of July in the South. [continue reading…]
As noted in my post Kinsella Speech at Students for Liberty – Texas Conference (Austin), on “Intellectual Freedom vs Patent and Copyright”, last month I delivered the speech “Intellectual Freedom and Learning versus Patent and Copyright,” for the 2010 Students For Liberty Texas Regional Conference, University of Texas, Austin.
As noted on the website of the Foundation for a Free Society, the video of my talk is now available. See below. Here is the audio file.
Update: here is an edited transcription: Kinsella, “Intellectual Freedom and Learning Versus Patent and Copyright,” Economic Notes No. 113 (Libertarian Alliance, Jan. 18, 2011) [The Libertarian Standard version]
(Youtube version 2 with improved audio.)
Update: podcast version: KOL062 | “Intellectual Freedom and Learning versus Patent and Copyright” (2010)
As the lecturer for an upcoming Mises Academy course (Study Libertarian Legal Theory Online with Stephan Kinsella), I have to say, I like the idea of Grayson Lilburnd in this Mises Blog post 🙂
Just in time for the holidays, now you can purchase a Mises Academy course as a gift, and actually have a physical “Gift Enrollment Certificate” to give to the recipient! This option may be especially helpful to parents who would like to purchase Principles of Economics, a course by Robert Murphy (based on his middle/high school textbook Lessons for the Young Economist) for their son or daughter.
The one non-intuitive thing about gifting a course, is that to do it, you need to create an account for the gift recipient, that you then pass to him or her.
Here’s how you would go about it.
- Go to academy.mises.org and set up an account with (A) the recipient’s name, (B) your own email address, and (C) a password that you can pass on to the recipient. Confirm the new account via the confirmation email that will be sent to you (check your spam folder, in case your filter catches the message).
- Use the new account to enroll in the course that you’d like to give as a gift. See here for available courses.
- After you enroll, you will be directed to the course’s “syllabus page”. Near the top of the syllabus page, you will see a “Gift Enrollment Certificate” link. Click on that to download the certificate as a printable PDF file. See the sample certificate below to see a smaller version of what it would look like.
- Give the Gift Enrollment Certificate to your loved one. Also be sure to give them the web address of the course, the username, and the password. Tell the recipient that the first thing they should do when they log in is to click on their name to access the user profile settings, and change the email address and password on the account.
We at the Mises Academy wish you an erudite Christmas and an edifying New Year!
[TLS]
Re: U.K. Fee-Rise Vote Passes Amid Student Protests. Protesting what? Having to pay a higher percentage of their subsidized “education”? Screw that. Tuition should be raised until the local college bars start shutting down. Then we know students are really hurting.
This idea of mine and some friends from 2006 never got off the ground.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Welcome to Murder Park!
This is the blog for the Podcast “Murder Park,” a weekly libertarian bullsession with co-hosts Stephan Kinsella and Gil Guillory, and other rotating panelists and occasional guests.
Our name is drawn from an example by Walter Block. In Radical Privatization and other Libertarian Conundrums, for example, Block noted that under libertarianism, a “murder park” would be legal–“where people may shoot one another, provided only that all of them had agreed to take part in this game, and there are thick walls so that no outsiders are shot”.
The point, of course, is that the basis of all political norms is private property, which permits property owners to establish the rules of use of their property.
Anarcho-Austrian-libertarianism is the viewpoint enunciated by thinkers in the tradition of Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe–to some of us, the libertarian trinity.
When I was younger (say, 8 to 15), I was fascinated by the paranormal books and magazines, like Omni, pyramid power, UFOs, etc. Later on (say, 12 to 15 or so) I became, and remain, more skeptical. In law school I helped co-found a local skeptics’ group, at first named Mid-South Skeptics Association, and later BR-PRISM (Baton Rouge Proponents of Rational Inquiry and the Scientific Method). A reporter covered us in 1988 in the State-Times/Morning Advocate (here’s the story). We were loosely affiliated with CSICOP, if I recall correctly. The founder was a very smart man in his 70s or 80s, Henry Murry, that I became good friends with. He passed on some time ago. I handled our newsletter in the primitive computer days. I went to psychic demonstrations and handed out skeptic literature. I appeared on a local TV talk show, hosted by Pat Shingleton, debating a “psychic”–I brought with me a sealed envelope with a piece of paper with the word “trumpet” written on it, to test him on air, which I did, and which he failed (I had the video but it’s been lost, I think).
I eventually resigned from BR-PRISM, even before I left Baton Rouge, for several reasons. One was that the group, just like CSICOP, refused to class religion as just another superstition like ESP and witchcraft and UFOs. I didn’t understand this reluctance. If it was prudential, it seemed to me intellectually dishonest. If it was because they viewed religion as somehow not as pseudoscientific or harmful as tabloid-type paranormal things, then I thought that was just inconsistent. Some of our members were religious, and I just didn’t see how they could possibly support reason and still be religious (I’ve become less Randroid and stridently anti-religion since those years). [continue reading…]
[Update: see various biographical pieces on my publications page, including Alan D. Bergman, Adopting Liberty: The Stephan Kinsella Story (2025).]
This was a Texas Lawyer piece from early 2009 concerning an interesting development at the beginning of my legal career in 1991-92, as a result of the last recession. Wait, make that three recessions ago. This explains how I ended up getting an LL.M. in London.
By Brenda Sapino Jeffreys and Miriam Rozen
April 27, 2009
Thompson & Knight partner Paul Comeaux Image: Mark Graham
Editor’s note: These are grim times for law students and associates, with Texas firms laying off lawyers, cutting summer associate programs and deferring start dates for incoming first-year associates due to a troubled economy. So Texas Lawyer decided to talk with attorneys who have experienced tough economic times in the past and those dealing with the current fallout to put a face to what’s happening in the legal employment market.
BigTex firms have scaled back before because of economic conditions. In 1991, for instance, Dallas firm Jackson Walker asked a number of its incoming first-year associates to consider a one-year deferment in
exchange for a stipend. Two lawyers who took the firm up on that offer say it turned out to be a positive experience and helped boost their careers. But does the past offer lessons for today’s associates? We talked to a lawyer laid off from a BigTex firm
who’s hunting for a new job, as well as to a Bracewell & Giuliani associate who transferred to the New York City office when she noticed her Houston corporate practice was slowing down. Here are their stories.
Friends Paul Comeaux and Stephan Kinsella were preparing to graduate from Paul M. Hebert Law Center at Louisiana State University in 1991 and start work as first-year associates at Jackson Walker in Houston when they received a tempting offer from the firm: If they deferred their start date for a year, the firm would pay them $21,000.
While $21,000 doesn’t sound like much today — and it was only a net of $14,000 because it included a $7,000 acceptance bonus — Comeaux notes that his first-year starting salary was $55,000. That’s about a third of the current starting salaries for first-year lawyers at BigTex firms.
“They had too many lawyers coming in,” Kinsella says, noting that Jackson Walker wanted up to 15 of the incoming associates to take the deferment, and he recalls that about a dozen did.
Kinsella says he and Comeaux discussed their options, and both decided to take the deferment and use the time to get an LL.M. degree in international law from King’s College at the University of London. [continue reading…]
Stephan Kinsella is a libertarian writer and retired patent attorney in Houston, Texas. He has published widely on various areas of libertarian legal theory and on legal topics such as intellectual property law and international law. His publications include Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Papinian Press, 2023), Against Intellectual Property (Mises Institute, 2008), International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide (Oxford, 2020), and The Universal Principles of Liberty (2025).
My Failed Libertarian Speaking Hiatus; Memories of Mises Institute and Other Events, 1988–20192025
© 2012-2026 StephanKinsella.com 
To the extent possible under law, Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to material on this Site, unless indicated otherwise. In the event the CC0 license is unenforceable a 
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License is hereby granted.
Recent Comments