Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (43.9MB)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 415.
Last year Larken Rose and I appeared on Patrick Smith’s Disenthrall show, after Rose had posted some videos criticizing libertarians who pirated the HBO show “The Anarchists” as “poopheads,” even though he technically opposes IP. Or claims to. According to Rose, you should “throwing a couple dollars towards HBO” or something, to avoid being a poophead. He granted that someone pirating an already-leaked video file is not committing aggression (they have no contract with the creator), but they are a “jerk.” Or “poop head.” After all, the “creator” of the “content” put his “labor” into it and didn’t “want it” to be pirated. And his “business model” depends on people “not pirating it.”
Or something. So you are a “poophead” if you mess up their unrealistic business model. [continue reading…]
Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:07:46 — 61.7MB)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 414.
Regarding this post, Libertarian Answer Man: Breach of Contract, Binding Obligations, and Impossibility, my old and longtime buddy Jeff Barr, a brilliant attorney and legal scholar and fellow Hoppean-Rothbardian (Jeff studied at UNLV under Rothbard and Hoppe), discussed these issues in further depth today. (Part 2: KOL418 | Corporations, Limited Liability, and the Title Transfer Theory of Contract, with Jeff Barr: Part II.)
A libertarian colleague asked me something like this:
Some time ago, I recall you wrote a piece on property rights where you argued (I think) that the inability to pay on a credit transaction was not a fraud because of the doctrine of impossibility. (I’m clearly paraphrasing in hopes that you will recognize the piece to which I’m referring.) I can’t seem to find it. (Perhaps it’s in the JLS or some reply to Van Dun.)
If you know the piece, could you direct me to it?
Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (22.1MB)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 413.
I was asked to make a guest appearance on SwanBitcoin’s Café Bitcoin Tuesday today Aug. 1, 2023), where we discussed law versus legislation, the impacts of sound money on social character, and related matters.
It was also posted on their podcast feed (iTunes; Spotify; google) and I include here my segment.
Adapted from my recent Facebook post:
This article on Mises.org is disappointing (Daniel Lacalle, “Price Inflation Slowed to 3 Percent. That’s Still Far Too High,” Mises Wire (July 24, 2023). I guess it’s a blessing they seem to have disabled comments. Because this would be my comment:
This is not how Austrians think—at least, not Misesian-Rothbardians. The title gives it away: “Price Inflation Slowed to 3 Percent. That’s Still Far Too High.” As if there is a desired inflation rate—say, zero percent (in nominal terms).
And this line: “Inflation is caused by the constant increase in the quantity of currency in circulation well above real demand.” [continue reading…]
We spoke in the past, briefly, and I do appreciate that you’re open to emails. I’m not really expecting any kind of answer from this, just trying to bring to your attention a weird issue in the reasoning of a lot of pro-IP people that I’ve seen. AI has been a hot topic (though not the subject of this email), and in conversations with people about it I’ve seen the following come up time and time again. [continue reading…]
In 1912, in The Theory of Money and Credit [TMC], Ludwig von Mises argued that money is neither a producer good nor a consumer good, but a special type of good, which, following Karl Knies, he called media of exchange goods. Nowadays, some Austrians refer to money as a sui generis good (sui generis meaning “of its own kind”), to highlight its unique character, although Mises apparently never himself used this terminology. For example, in a recent article touching on this topic, Thorsten Polleit writes:
Money is no consumption good and no production good. It is the exchange good, a good sui generis. I should also note that money is not a claim on goods, and in a free market, no one is obliged to give you something for your money.