≡ Menu

KOL076 | IP Debate with Chris LeRoux

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 076.

IP Debate with Chris (aka “Sid Non-Vicious”) LeRoux, hosted by James Cox. LeRoux claims to be an anarcho-capitalist and former Randian but not a libertarian (he doesn’t like labels, you see). He was recently arguing kinda for IP-but-not-really on Shanklin’s podcast (see below), and contacted me  about these issues. As you can see from the “debate” it’s not clear what his position is or why he even wanted to debate me, or what he really disagrees with me on, but, …. here it is. Cox did a good guy trying to moderate, but it ended up being a mess, as it always is with people that are not clear on basic libertarian concepts and not totally opposed to IP.

Relevant links:

 

Play
Share

{ 10 comments… add one }

  • Dan Bonin August 31, 2013, 11:01 am

    I couldn’t even finish this, and I made it through the Wenzel debate.

  • Scott R September 27, 2013, 4:07 pm

    I forced myself to listen to most of it, but finally gave up close to the end. Hard to say which debate was more painful to listen to. And why didn’t you ever define “rivalnous”?!?!

    Stephan, where did you find this guy anyway?

    Some ideas for upcoming debates:

    – Stephan vs drunk homeless guy living under a bridge
    – Stephan vs guy who claims he was once abducted by aliens
    – Stephan vs a blind parrot

  • Joe October 16, 2013, 5:18 am

    Jesus – how painful was that to listen to?

    “He didn’t answer my question”
    “OK – So what’s your question?”
    “I don’t have any questions”.

    WTF!

  • John Strong October 17, 2013, 8:18 pm

    I kept waiting for someone to introduce the concept of a *bundle* of property rights: freedom to use, abuse, alienate – are all different.

  • @profeluke October 31, 2013, 8:08 am

    Good to know that we have clear-thinking, articulate people like Chris LeRoux to help explain our ideas…

  • Chris LeRoux December 14, 2014, 7:15 am

    Kinsella-tard doesn’t understand the difference between a universal and an instance of a universal. He is a statist attorney, not a philosopher or an economist. He indeed initiates aggression, coercion, and fraud working within the system he claims to oppose. You cannot own universals for they do not exist. Everything which does exist can be owned of course, can be brought under exclusive control. Kinsella drops the definition of property and ownership in his assertions. Kinsella is an ignorant, fool and an advocate of communism, an advocate of prior restraint against non-coercive homesteading and exchange.

    “I think filing a federal trademark registration might be a good idea in some cases.” ~Stephan Kinsella

    “To call an object or thing “property” is confusing or misleading.” ~Stephan Kinsella

  • Mark December 14, 2014, 10:33 am

    There’s stupid and then there’s a special kind of stupid that should forever be known from now on as as ‘Chris LeRoux stupid’ – or ‘Cupid Stunts’ for short.

    “Everything which does exist can be owned of course”

    I doubt Stephan has ever said that anything can’t be owned. However, he has always made a clear distinction between what can be owned exclusively and things that can be ‘owned’ by more than one entity at the same time. e.g. a Recipe.

    Artificially granting ‘exclusive’ ownership of such things, with penalties being applied to anyone who is not the State’s ‘chosen’ one, can only be applied within some form of Statist environment. It does not change the fact that the Recipe, Formula or Blueprint is still owned by the many. Plus, absent Alzheimer’s or the labotomy that you seem to have undergone, it is not possible for them to NOT own it once they have seen or heard it.

    All that changes, is that there will be a penalty if anyone, who was not the chosen one, attempts to pass that knowledge on for financial gain. Those who support such nonsense are advocating ‘Statism’. Even amongst those who ‘claim’ to be anti-Statism, there are this very special group, who are so fucking stupid that they don’t realize that they are advocating Statism when they support this. You could very well be the poster child for them – and you’d proabably want exclusivity on that holding of position enforced by the State.
    “I think filing a federal trademark registration might be a good idea in some cases.” ~Stephan Kinsella

    Did you miss the many occasions on which Stephan has explained that one such case is for protection against the ‘produce-nothing’ Statists who might seek to file Patents and Trademarks (for things that they had no hand in creating) in order to become the State’s chosen one and prevent anyone else from using/selling it. So, even if you create something that you are quite happy for others to replicate and sell alongside your products, you could be prevented from continuing your sales by a Statist shill and even have that prevention supported by the Cupid Stunts too.

  • Mark December 14, 2014, 10:37 am

    There’s stupid and then there’s a special kind of stupid that should forever be known from now on as Chris LeRoux stupid – or ‘Cupid Stunts’ for short.

    “Everything which does exist can be owned of course”

    I doubt Stephan has ever said that anything can’t be owned. However, he has always made a clear distinction between what can be owned exclusively and things that can be ‘owned’ by more than one entity at the same time. e.g. a Recipe.

    Artificially granting ‘exclusive’ ownership of such things, with penalties being applied to anyone who is not the State’s ‘chosen’ one, can only be applied within some form of Statist environment. It does not change the fact that the Recipe, Formula or Blueprint is still owned by the many. Plus, absent Alzheimer’s or the labotomy that you seem to have undergone, it is not possible for them to NOT own it once they have seen or heard it.

    All that changes, is that there will be a penalty if anyone, who was not the chosen one, attempts to pass that knowledge on for financial gain. Those who support such nonsense are advocating ‘Statism’. Even amongst those who ‘claim’ to be anti-Statism, there are this very special group, who are so f*cking stupid that they don’t realize that they are advocating Statism when they support this. You could very well be the poster child for them – and you’d proabably want exclusivity on the that holding of position enforced by the State.

    “I think filing a federal trademark registration might be a good idea in some cases.” ~Stephan Kinsella

    Did you miss the many occasions on which Stephan has explained that one such case is for protection against the ‘produce-nothing’ Statists who might seek to file Patents and Trademarks (for things that they had no hand in creating) in order to become the State’s chosen one and prevent anyone else from using/selling it? So, even if you create something that you are quite happy for others to replicate and sell alongside your products, you could be prevented from continuing your sales by a Statist shill and even have that prevention supported by the Cupid Stunts too.

  • Chris LeRoux December 14, 2014, 4:25 pm

    I consider the matter closed. Statist attorneys should stick to their star chambers, or better yet quit and shut up.

    http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/8397/intellectualproperty/

    • Mark December 14, 2014, 4:56 pm

      “I considered the matter closed”

      Yeah, well you should have considered it closed before this morning and made the choice to STFU instead of making incorrect and asinine statements that could be so easily blown apart.

      You would have been better off keeping your mouth shut, thereby leaving an impression that you might be a complete moron instead of opening your mouth and removing any and all doubt.

Leave a Comment

Bad Behavior has blocked 12628 access attempts in the last 7 days.

© 2012-2014 StephanKinsella.com CC0 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 License Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License is hereby granted.

-- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright