Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 58:54 — 47.6MB)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 248.
From my recent appearance on Stephan Livera’s bitcoin-focused podcast.
Stephan Kinsella, Intellectual Property lawyer, and libertarian advocate joins me in this episode to discuss:
- His story with bitcoin
- Money as Sui Generis Good
- The imprecise application of Lockean property theory
- Why you can’t own bitcoin, but it probably doesn’t make a big difference anyway
- The harmful effects of patents and copyright
- ‘Internet Censorship’ as it relates to property rights and ownership of private social media platforms
Stephan Kinsella links:
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.
Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 36:26 — 25.0MB)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 247.
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. [click to continue…]
Libertarian Robert LeFevre published his two-volume autobiography, with publisher Pulpless.com, in 1999. It’s still available in print on Amazon:
PDF links for each volume are now available here: Vol. 1 [PDF]; Vol. 2 [PDF], posted here with the permission of the publisher.
I also discuss LeFevre here: Classical Liberals and Anarchists on Intellectual Property: observing: “Robert LeFevre (1911–86): expresses very good, early skepticism of the notion of IP or ownership of ideas (see LeFevre on Intellectual Property and the “Ownership of Intangibles”).”
Also see LeFevre’s The Fundamentals of Liberty, also available for download in many file formats here. His book The Philosophy of Ownership is also available online.
Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:22:22 — 75.4MB)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 246.
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.
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.
- KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3)
- KOL233 | Mises UK Podcast: Bitcoin Ownership and the Global Withering of the State
- for more on whether bitcoin is ownable property, see this Facebook thread
- KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender
- KOL086 | RARE Radio interview with Kurt Wallace: The War on Bitcoin
- KOL 043 | Triple-V: Voluntary Virtues Vodcast, with Michael Shanklin: Bitcoin, Legal Reform, Morality of Voting, Rothbard on Copyright
- Tax Plan May Hurt Bitcoin, WSJ
- Swiss Tax Authorities Confirm that Bitcoin is VAT-free in Switzerland
- Tokyo court says bitcoins are not ownable
- FinCEN Rules Commodity-Backed Token Services are Money Transmitters
- Bitcoin Is Officially a Commodity, According to U.S. Regulator;
- Miami Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Not Money; Dismisses Money Laundering, Transmitting Charges
- How to handle bitcoin gains on your taxes
- SEC: US Securities Laws ‘May Apply’ to Token Sales
- Federal Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Real Money
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 (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.
Here are links to my “Introduction” and the book’s final chapter, “Kinsella on Liberty Podcast Episode 208: Conversation with Schulman about Logorights and Media-Carried Property.”
[click to continue…]
Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (18.4MB)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 245
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.
From my July 20, 2014 Daily Bell interview by Anthony Wile, “Stephan Kinsella on Libertarian Legal Theory, Self-Ownership and Drug Laws.” I have to point this out so many times over and over to people, that I thought I’d put it in a separate post.
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. [click to continue…]