The Tenth Annual World Liberty Summit 2026 (Nov. 10 and 11, 2026), organized by the think tank Sociedad de la Libertad (SDL Latam, @SDLPeru), based in Lima, Peru. This year’s Summit will be held in La Paz, Bolivia. The general theme is the future of anarcho-capitalism and the State in the 21st century.
Last night (Nov. 11, 2026) I spoke on “Private Law and the Universal Principles of Liberty.” My speech (including Spanish translation) is below.
The Tenth Annual World Liberty Summit 2026 (Nov. 10 and 11, 2026), organized by the think tank Sociedad de la Libertad (SDL Latam, @SDLPeru), based in Lima, Peru. This year’s Summit will be held in La Paz, Bolivia. The general theme is the future of anarcho-capitalism and the State in the 21st century.
Last night (Nov. 10, 2026) I spoke on “The Conflict Between AI and Copyright” on the Technology Panel. My speech (including Spanish translation) is below.
The event organizer, Rosa María Apaza of SDL LATAM, sent this wrap-up afterward (translated from the Spanish):
Here’s a look back at the 10th World Liberty Summit, “The Future of Anarcho-Capitalism and the State in the 21st Century.”
It was incredible to bring together the leading figures of anarcho-capitalism for three marathon—and enjoyable—sessions.
We will soon post Per Bylund’s two powerful presentations from Saturday, November 7, on our YouTube channel. Those attending in person were able to enjoy his talks without any problem.
Get ready: the LIBERTÉ SDL LATAM 2026 Awards are coming soon.
Long live liberty, damn it!
Long live anarcho-capitalism forever!
Long live SDL LATAM!
X Cumbre fue el encuentro de cognotados referentes del anarcocapitalismo
@PerBylund @NSKinsella @rmrojas58 @MaryRuwart Walter Block, @Bastos_Quotes @martinkrause
Fotos IG
https://t.co/5ZTTTfTr9l
Ver👇
https://t.co/qPNX5S0lSf
The Tenth Annual World Liberty Summit 2026 (Nov. 10 and 11, 2026), organized by the think tank Sociedad de la Libertad (SDL Latam, @SDLPeru), based in Lima, Peru. This year’s Summit will be held in La Paz, Bolivia. The general theme is the future of anarcho-capitalism and the State in the 21st century.
@NSKinsella desde EEUU saluda a Sociedad de la Libertad (SDL Latam) por su V Aniversario
💥Mañana nuestros referentes del anarcocapitalismo ofrecerán potentes discursos
💛Feliz Dia de la LIBERTAD MUNDIAL
Un dia como hoy se fundó SDL LATAM en Lima
🖤VIVA EL ANARCOCAPITALISMO!💛 https://t.co/KKuIkkW0NA
I will be providing two short 15-minute lectures (with Spanish translation interspersed): “The Conflict Between AI and Copyright” (Technology Panel, Nov. 10, 20.15 hrs Bolivia; 6:15pm Central Time) and “Private Law and the Universal Principles of Liberty” (Anarcho-Capitalism Panel: The Future of Anarcho-Capitalism and the State in the 21st Century; Nov. 11, 20.15 hrs Bolivia; 6:15pm Central Time).
See Sociedad de la Libertad, por su quinto aniversario, anuncia la semana de la libertad del 6 al 11 de noviembre: Abordan el futuro del anarcocapitalismo y el Estado en el siglo XXI en la X Cumbre Mundial de la Libertad Bolivia 2026.Apoyar una ONG (To mark its fifth anniversary, the Society for Liberty (Sociedad de la Libertad) announces “Liberty Week,” taking place from November 6 to 11. The event will explore the future of anarcho-capitalism and the State in the 21st century as part of the 10th World Liberty Summit (Bolivia 2026).
Abstract: This article develops a typology of knowledge in economics, drawing on the works of Carl Menger and F. A. Hayek, to clarify how different types of knowledge affect production, coordination, and entrepreneurial profit. It organizes economically relevant knowledge along two axes—the physical world versus the catallactic world, on the one hand, and general versus applied, on the other—and adds a temporal dimension to distinguish knowledge problems from uncertainty. The framework reveals that while physical-world knowledge sets the boundaries of what can be produced, catallactic-world knowledge guides what should be produced and how. The article applies this typology to Austrian theories of the market process, showing that uncertainty arises when value knowledge is unavailable at the time of action and that entrepreneurial profit stems from bearing this uncertainty rather than from superior knowledge. This conceptual separation advances the understanding of economic causality and the distinct functions of knowledge in market processes.
I steered Claude to write some commentary on this–have not reviewed yet completely so might not agree with it all but it has good references to other related writing of mine. [continue reading…]
Bylund 1 sees the core issues as the meaning and application of the non-aggression principle amid thick-vs-thin debates, open-borders vs. property-rights views on immigration, principle vs. efficacy/utilitarianism (including in the Libertarian Party), assessments of Milei’s record, and some libertarians’ support for political Zionism (viewed as endorsing aggression and statism), plus related institutional failures (e.g., during COVID), progressive shifts, and alliances with the New Right or left that risk diluting radical libertarianism. This frames a call for philosophical clarification of where libertarianism is headed, focused on the NAP.
Thank you for your work and for making it freely available. Any comments are very welcome. … Please feel free to comment (would be much appreciated) on the website. Good or bad reviews are always welcome equally.
I’ve been listening to Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar’s podcast, Amarica’s Constitution, on and off for a while, even though he’s mainstream and somewhat liberal. But unlike most of the legal academy, not reflexively centralist. (See his America’s Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By (Basic Books, 2012).) 1
His recent episode, “The Innocent Ham Sandwich” (Amarica’s Constitution, Oct. 28, 2026, with co-host Andy Lipka) has a couple of ideas of interest to libertarian decentralists: one on jury nullification (one important limit on state power), the other on State nullification of federal law (another important vertical limit on central US fedgov state power; one that libertarian centralists seem not to be that interested in). 2[continue reading…]
N.b.: I have used AI in the past (mostly Grok) to summarize and other mechanical tasks, but am reluctant to use it for writing. Finding newer emerging capabilities in Claude, I used it to help with finding and citing references and writing a first draft. I rewrote it all so it did not save time really but it did result in a more detailed post that would have taken more time had I done it without AI help. Interesting. [↩]
The transcripts, translated by Claude, are below (pdf; .docx). They are voluminous so I have not had time to review any of this. Text below (pdf; .docx). [continue reading…]
It took some work to have Episode #318 translated and analyzed by Grok. Too much effort o do them all, I figured. But I decided to let Claude take a crack at it. It produced translations and a summary of all 16 episodes. I post the summary and analysis below, and the translated transcripts separately (Romanian Libertarian (În Dodii) Discussions of The Legal Foundations of a Free Society: Transcripts). It is voluminous so I have not had time to review any of this, so any errors–blame Claude. Text below (pdf; .docx). [continue reading…]
Episode #318 includes host Munteanu and regulars Costel Stăvarache, Mari Berceanu, and Alex Chiriac. The podcast discusses freedom, private property, the non-aggression principle, and free markets in a relaxed, rambling way..
Summary
In this episode of their Romanian-language podcast, host Munteanu and regulars Costel Stăvarache, Mari Berceanu and Alex Chiriac continue their series on Legal Foundations of a Free Society with Chapter 13, “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society.” The discussion centres on the chapter’s main claim: law discovered in a decentralized way, as in customary law, common law and early Roman law, fits libertarian principles, while centralized legislation does not, both because of its content and because the method of lawmaking by decree is itself at odds with liberty. Drawing on Leoni, Hayek, Rothbard and Hoppe, the panel explores why predictability and the rule of law matter. They also argue over whether a law can be predictable and still unjust, debate gradualism versus immediate abolition, and ask whether a libertarian majority dismantling the state would be “imposing” on others. Along the way they show how unstable legislation raises time preference and erodes respect for law. Their examples come mostly from Romania: shifting tax rules, arbitrary tax inspectors, emergency ordinances and self-serving officials. The episode’s central image is a tap. A legislature exists to make laws and will keep making them, and anyone who turns it off can be followed by someone who turns it back on. So the answer is not better oversight of lawmakers but having no tap at all, with law left to decentralized courts and libertarian ideas spread through education rather than legislation. [continue reading…]
Recent Comments