StephanKinsella.com

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (38.1MB)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 440.

My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella: Part IIb.  (Spotify)

Shownotes:

The Rational Egoist: Concluding the Intellectual Property Debate with Stephan Kinsella (Part 2 of 2)

In this final episode of a two-part series, host Michael Liebowitz concludes his engaging debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney and author, on the moral and legal status of intellectual property. Building on the groundwork laid in the previous discussion, Michael and Kinsella delve further into the core arguments surrounding IP rights, examining their effects on creativity, innovation, and property law.

The episode offers compelling insights into both sides of the debate, providing a thorough exploration of one of the most contested issues in legal and economic theory. Tune in for the conclusion of this thought-provoking exchange that challenges established viewpoints and offers fresh perspectives on intellectual property.

Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (40.3MB)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 439.

My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella: Part IIa.  (Spotify) Michael will release the second half, PartIIb, later.

Shownotes:

The Rational Egoist: Resuming the Intellectual Property Debate with Stephan Kinsella (Part 1 of 2)

In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz resumes his debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney and author, on the contentious issue of intellectual property. Picking up from their conversation a couple of weeks ago, Michael and Kinsella dive even deeper into the philosophical and legal arguments concerning IP rights. This is part one of a two-part series that explores the impact of intellectual property on innovation, individual rights, and economic systems. Join them for a rigorous exchange of ideas that challenges conventional thinking and sets the stage for the next episode’s continuation.

Michael Leibowitz, host of The Rational Egoist podcast, is a philosopher and political activist who draws inspiration from Ayn Rand’s philosophy, advocating for reason, rational self-interest, and individualism. His journey from a 25-year prison sentence to a prominent voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities highlights the transformative impact of embracing these principles. Leibowitz actively participates in political debates and produces content aimed at promoting individual rights and freedoms. He is the co-author of “Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime” and “View from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Liberty,” which explore societal issues and his personal evolution through Rand’s teachings.

As readers of my work know, I am usually very patient with sincere questions from newbs. But sometimes I reach my limit.

I received this email, unsolicited, from some guy I apparently made the mistake of replying to before, thus apparently encouraging and emboldening him. I’ll share my reply to him below. I’m so tired of these losers/cranks besieging me. [continue reading…]

A friend of mine, let’s call him “Gene,” asked me for my take on dueling and some related issues. This was in response to one of his friends criticizing libertarianism because it would have all kinds of unacceptable or unpleasant things such as frequent resort to dueling. Presumably the friend would outlaw dueling, and thinks libertarianism is defective because it would not.

My friend asked me if I thought dueling would be legal in a libertarian world, and also whether someone repeatedly harassing you and challenging you to a duel, not taking no for an answer, could be seen as making a threat. In that case, could the target/victim of this harassment seek an injunction or restraining order to keep harasser away. [continue reading…]

I was long friends with Tibor Machan (see Remembering Tibor Machan, Libertarian Mentor and Friend: Reflections on a Giant). We corresponded for years and met many times in Auburn when I would attend Mises Institute events. When I lived in Philadelphia, from 1994–97, we would occasionally get together when he was passing through. As I recall, he introduced me one time to Patrick Burke. I think we had lunch together. Burke was a nice and gentle man, from what I dimly recall, a religion professor at Temple in Philly. He has apparently passed away in the meantime, as has Tibor.

In any case, I read his book No Harm: Ethical Principles for a Free Market (1994), which had just been published and which we had discussed at  lunch. It was decent but flawed, if earnest. I published a critical review of it in Tibor’s journal Reason Papers in 1995, Stephan Kinsella, “Book Review of Patrick Burke, No Harm: Ethical Principles for a Free Market (1994),” Reason Papers No. 20 (Fall 1995), p. 135. Ultimate I critique his “harm” criterion, just as I critique a similar the similar approach opposing “imposing costs” on others by J.C. (Jan) Lester in his book Escape from Leviathan: Libertarianism without Justificationism.

See, e.g,. Stephan Kinsella, “A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights,” in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) (LFFS), n.16 and accompanying text; idem, “Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights,” in LFFS, at n.3 and accompanying text; idem, “‘Aggression’ versus ‘Harm’ in Libertarianism,” Mises Economics Blog (Dec. 16, 2009); and idem, “Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value,” StephanKinsella.com (June 12, 2011).

Burke’s focus on “harm” as the key principle behind rights, instead of aggression, leads him into error, for example accepting the legitimacy of blackmail and defamation law, and even laws banning dueling, since “a challenge to a duel is akin to blackmail.” His view of contracts is also flawed since it is based on the notion of detrimental reliance (which I critique in “A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability,” in LFFS, at Part I.E).

My book Legal Foundations of a Free Society concerns justice. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes in his Foreword, “The question as to what is justice and what constitutes a just society is as old as philosophy itself. Indeed, it arises in everyday life even long before any systematic philosophizing is to begin.” In ch. 2 (n.3), I quote the classic formulation from Justinian: “Justice is the constant and perpetual wish to render every one his due.… The maxims of law are these: to live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due.”

I came across a nice quote about justice from esteemed Louisiana federal judge Alvin Rubin (2) (1920–91), from the case U.S. v. McDaniels, 379 F.Supp. 1243 (E.D. La. 1974): [continue reading…]

Dear Mr. Kinsella,

I hope this message finds you well. I have a question regarding the use of performative contradiction in argumentation ethics. I’d really appreciate it if you could share your thoughts.

My question is, without using performative contradiction, self-ownership is naturally true in argumentation since argumentation presupposes self-ownership. It is like Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem that Gödel found a way of allowing mathematics to talk about itself. It is self-referential. In the case of argumentation, if A owns B, there is no need for an argumentation between A and B over the ownership of C, A would just own C by default. In this case, in order to have an argumentation, A and B must be self-owned. [continue reading…]