One of my favorite interviews to date. We get into rights, property, self ownership and the philosophy behind these things. We then move into “intellectual property” and the case against copyright and patents.
***
This week I feature my interview with the brilliant Stephan Kinsella. We discuss the nature of rights as libertarians view them. We get into property rights, human rights, self ownership and why there is really no such thing as intellectual property. Stephan makes a strong case against copyrights and patents. Stephan’s body of work can be found here: https://stephankinsella.com and here: http://c4sif.org Find us online at www.facebook.com/deathtotyrantspodcast Follow me on Twitter @buckrebel
This is my appearance on Creative Juice, by Indepreneur, Episode66: EP66: The Shocking Case For Abolishing Copyright Laws w/ Patent Attorney Stephan Kinsella, Sep 28, 2018, with host Kyle Lemaire. We talked about a variety of matters, from the nature of property rights, Rothbard’s view that all human rights are property rights, Locke’s labor theory of property and the Marxian labor theory of value, the history and general nature of IP rights and why IP rights are incompatible with other property rights. This was a very fast-talking, dense episode with a lot of lecturing and talking from my end, but I think we covered a lot of ground, from the foundations of law and property rights to IP law.
Their shownotes:
Since its beginning, the music industry has been under heavy government regulation: copyright laws control much of the economy of the music business. Today, there are many voices on the frontline arguing for the abolishment of all intellectual property, including copyright laws…
Stephan Kinsella is a Patent Attorney and advocate for IP Abolishment. On this episode of Creative Juice, Circa sits down with Stephan to discuss the little-known argument against intellectual property and how it may actually be harming independent artists and creatives.
“This is one of my favorite episodes of Creative Juice to date – I highly advise that you learn about this topic and take part in the discussion surrounding these laws. I believe this is one of the most important things to examine in our industry!” – Kyle “Circa” Lemaire
In response to the simpleminded but common comment and legal positivistic sentiment that international law is not real or that international law does not exist, because there is no sovereign state and enforceable legislation, see, inter alia, Anthony D’Amato, “What ‘Counts’ as Law?,” in Law-Making in the Global Communkty, Nicholas G. Onuf, ed. (1982), Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 11-02, and many other treatises and papers. Also Is international law real? Professor José Alvarez weighs in (“almost all 0:18 states comply with almost all international law almost all the time. 0:22 Most people focused on the almost, but the fact is that they do comply it’s 0:28 just not front page news when they do”); International Law Explained | Kal Raustiala | Big Think; Philip Allott – The True Nature of International Law.
Much of “classical international law” theory, developed by the Catholic Scholastics, notably the 16th-century Spanish Scholastics such as Vitoria and Suarez, and then the Dutch Protestant Scholastic Grotius and by 18th- and 19th-century jurists, was an explanation of the criteria for a just war. For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.
… Classical international law … should be brought back as quickly as possible.
I really enjoyed this conversation with Stephan Kinsella, and I hope you enjoy listening to it. If you get value out of this episode, please remember to share it on your social media as that really helps expand my reach. Thanks guys.
On a recent episode [July 29, 2018] of Free Talk Live, Ian and Mark discuss their disagreement over Mark’s filing a DMCA (copyright) takedown of a critical YouTube video. I called in to discuss this issue and intellectual property with Mark for the July 31 episode. For the full episode, go here. The excerpt with my portion is included here.
I’ve discussed IP and other libertarian issues on FTL before:
I’m here in Positano, at the beautiful Villa TreVille, on the last leg of the longest vacation of my life so far (July 1-20: Venice, Capri, Positano, Berlin). And this morning, here in Positano, walking down the steps from our room to the terrace to lounge, I had my sixth epiphany. Or so.
First, there were two fairly minor and personal ephanies.
1. Hell/Jesus/Religion: First: at age 15 or so when riding the Gravely tractor/lawnmower, mowing our 3-4 acre tract. As a pretty devout Catholic schoolboy and former altar boy, I was thinking hard about religion and the world around this time. It had already occurred to me that if God condemns you to eternal damnation as punishment for some sins committed while mortal, this can’t be just. An infinite punishment is disproportionate for a finite amount of crime. So, I reasoned, there cannot be hell. Therefore not evertyhing the Catholics teach is right. So what else might be false? Then I dared to question the idea of Jesus, and of God, and it all crumbled. My epiphany was in the realization that I could dare not only to question Hell but the whole Catholic story about Jesus. [continue reading…]
This is my appearance on the CryptoVoices podcast, Episode 43, interviewed by host Matthew Mežinskis. As indicated in the show notes (below), we discussed a variety of issues related to bitcoin, property rights, and related matters. The hosts also informed me of a recent article they had written regarding the economic classification of crypto tokens: An Economic Definition of Cryptotokens.
Shownotes:
Show support appreciated: 35iDYDYqRdN2x6KGcpdV2W1Hy3AjGje9oL
Matthew interviews Stephan Kinsella, longtime advocate of private property and personal liberty, and expert on intellectual property law.
We discuss broad-ranging issues on Bitcoin and private property. Is Bitcoin really property per se, and does anyone truly own bitcoin(s)?
Also, how does the nature of intellectual property (or lack thereof) play into the open-source aspects of Bitcoin? What is Bitcoin? Is Bitcoin a digital good? Stephan shares his knowledge on the history of intellectual thought, personal liberty, and intellectual property to answer some of these questions. We discuss some current topics about the brand of Bitcoin (versus Bitcoin Cash), and if blockchain could(?) ever resolve some of the faults and friction in IP that Stephan has studied for years. Stephan is a well-read intellectual and Bitcoiners would do well to read more of his writings.
Note: An updated and revised version of this article appears as chap. 16 of Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023).
The “Conversation” linked below appears as chap. 17 of the same book.
***
I wrote the “Introduction” (really, a foreword) to J. Neil Schulman’s† latest book, Origitent: Why Original Content is Property (Steve Heller Publishing, 2018), just published this week (PDF; Amazon; discussed by Neil on Facebook here). It includes a transcript of our previous discussion at KOL208 | Conversation with Schulman about Logorights and Media-Carried Property.
From my appearance on the Nothing Exempt podcast, Ep. 53, discussing IP with a couple of libertarian hosts. Well, co-host Nick said he was 80% libertarian and disagreed with me on IP … but for somewhat inscrutable reasons, as I started asking him about, about 4 minutes in. Recorded June 6, 2018.
Anthony Wile: You’ve called the following a fallacy: “If you own something, that implies that you can sell it; and if you sell something, that implies you must own it first. The former idea, which is based on a flawed idea about the origin and nature of property rights and contract theory, is used to justify voluntary slavery; the second, which is based on a flawed understanding of contract theory, is used to justify intellectual property.” Can you elaborate please?
Stephan Kinsella: I discuss this in more detail in some podcasts such as
This is hard to elaborate in a quick interview. But here is a summary answer.
Ownership means right to control. It is not automatically clear why this would imply the power or ability or right to stop having the right to control it. My view is that we own our bodies not because of homesteading but because each person has a unique link to his body: his ability to directly control it. Hoppe recognized this decades ago, as I point out in How We Come To Own Ourselves. I had to find an old German text of his and have it translated, to find out his early insight on this, from 1985. This has implications for the idea of the voluntary slavery contract and the so-called inalienability debate. [continue reading…]
I also discuss LeFevre here: 
Recent Comments