My article, The Nature of the State and Why Libertarians Hate It, has been translated into Russian, as Природа государства, и почему либертарии его ненавидят. Text reproduced below.
Що таке “лібертаріанство”
Власність, права, та свобода
Лібертарі зазвичай мають спільні погляди на широке коло практик та принципів. Тим не менш, досягти консенсусу щодо визначальних характеристик лібертаріанства, або щодо його рис, які вирізняють його з поміж інших політичних теорій та систем, наразі не так вже й просто.
Існує безліч різноманітних формулювань. Стверджується, що лібертаріанство — це про права особистості, права власності, вільний ринок, капіталізм, справедливість, або принцип ненападу. Проте, не будь-що з переліченого підходить. Капіталізм та вільний ринок змальовують каталлактичні умови, що постають (чи є прийнятними) в лібертаріанському суспільстві, але вони не розкривають інших аспектів лібертаріанства. А права особистості, справедливість, та ненапад зводяться до прав власності. Як пояснив Мюррей Ротбард, права особистості є не що інше, як права власності. Справедливість же, в свою чергу — це коли кожен отримує належне йому (визначене його правами).
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 218.
This is Episode 50 of the Patterson in Pursuit podcast, where host Steve Patterson interviews me about Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. Patterson’s description:
If we choose to argue, have we presupposed an ethical framework? Is “self-ownership” a concept that cannot coherently be doubted?
To help me answer these questions, I’m joined by one of the most prominent supporters of “argumentation ethics” – the theory that says ownership is inescapable, and as soon as we choose to argue, we’re committed to a set of ethical values.
- Kinsella, “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide” (2011) and Supplemental Resources
- Hans Hermann Hoppe, “On The Ethics of Argumentation” (PFS 2016)
- Kinsella, New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory
- Frank van Dun, “Argumentation Ethics and The Philosophy of Freedom”
- Kinsella, The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory
- Kinsella, Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 217.
This is Episode 14 of the MusicPreneur podcast, “Intellectual Property is the Bastard Child of the Gatekeepers,” run by host James Newcomb. I appeared on his previous podcast, Outside the Music Box, a while back. This one is a fresh, stand-alone discussion where I lay out the case against IP fairly methodically. MusicPreneur shownotes below. See also my A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP. [click to continue…]
The great libertarian scholar Ralph Raico died last month (Dec. 13, 2016).1 Ralph and I were friends for the last 20 years. I first met Ralph when I started attending Mises Institute events when I was a young lawyer, in the mid-1990s.2 For many years, he was a fixture at the Mises Institute events I attended. We talked, had lunches, went to dinners together for years. I was at the Mises Institute event in the late 90s, if I recall correctly, that Objectivist George Reisman attended, fresh from his excommunication from the Ayn Rand Institute, where Reisman and Ralph, long-estranged by internecine libertarian squabbles, were reunited and rekindled their friendship. It was a pleasure to see, especially for me, as a former Randian of sorts myself.
In the last few years, Ralph was less mobile, and we would talk on occasion by email, or on the phone. He was supportive of the founding of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Property and Freedom Society PFS in 2006, with which I’ve also been involved since its inception, and he was a Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute for many years. [click to continue…]
- For other tributes to Ralph, see e.g. Jeff Tucker, Ralph Raico’s Liberal Mind and Spirit; Mark Thornton, True Liberalism: A Personal Reflection in Honor of Ralph Raico; Tom Woods show, Ep. 816 Liberty Lost a Great Historian in 2016 . [↩]
- See How I Became A Libertarian, December 18, 2002, LewRockwell.com (published as “Being a Libertarian” in I Chose Liberty: Autobiographies of Contemporary Libertarians (compiled by Walter Block; Mises Institute 2010.) [↩]
Rothbard, in The Ethics of Liberty, writes of the disastrous consequences of the fallacious Marxian labor theory of value:
“I am convinced, however, that the real motor for social and political change in our time has been a moral indignation arising from the fallacious theory of surplus value: that the capitalists have stolen the rightful property of the workers, and therefore that existing titles to accumulated capital are unjust. Given this hypothesis, the remainder of the impetus for both Marxism and anarchosyndicalism follow quite logically. From an apprehension of what appears to be monstrous injustice flows the call for “expropriation of the expropriators,” and, in both cases, for some form of “reversion” of the ownership and the control of the property to the workers. Their arguments cannot be successfully countered by the maxims of utilitarian economics or philosophy, but only by dealing forthrightly with the moral problem, with the problem of the justice or injustice of various claims to property.”1
Rothbard also quite rightly rejected the idea that property titles are to be overturned if we cannot trace title back to Adam, that is, if there is any taint in the “chain of title”—what Jeff Tucker has referred to as “scrupulosity”.2 As Rothbard wrote in an important addendum to a seminal 1974 paper:
“It might be charged that our theory of justice in property titles is deficient because in the real world most landed (and even other) property has a past history so tangled that it becomes impossible to identify who or what has committed coercion and therefore who the current just owner may be. But the point of the “homestead principle” is that if we don’t know what crimes have been committed in acquiring the property in the past, or if we don’t know the victims or their heirs, then the current owner becomes the legitimate and just owner on homestead grounds. In short, if Jones owns a piece of land at the present time, and we don’t know what crimes were committed to arrive at the current title, then Jones, as the current owner, becomes as fully legitimate a property owner of this land as he does over his own person. Overthrow of existing property title only becomes legitimate if the victims or their heirs can present an authenticated, demonstrable, and specific claim to the property. Failing such conditions, existing landowners possess a fully moral right to their property.”3
- PDF and epub; quote from ch. 9, Property and Criminality, text included in chs. 6-9 excerpt here. [↩]
- See Tucker, Scrupulosity and the Condemnation of Every Existing Business, archived comments here; discussed in my post Vulgarism, Left-libertarianism, Taco Bell, and “Power”; see also my posts Is Macy’s Part of the State? A Critique of Left Deviationists and The Walmart Question, or, the Unsupported Assertions of Left-Libertarianism (Apr. 26, 2009) (archived comments). [↩]
- Justice and Property Rights: Rothbard on Scarcity, Property, Contracts…, Libertarian Standard (Nov. 19, 2010); see also Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe on the “Original Sin” in the Distribution of Property Rights. [↩]