Kinsella on Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 472. This is my second talk this morning at Jayant Bhandari's (@JayantBhandari5) Capitalism & Morality 2025 (Vancouver) conference. Part 1: KOL471 | “What Is Property? And What Is Not? — Part 1," Capitalism & Morality (Vancouver). https://youtu.be/T-hBIZMYPro?si=TGjZCGr9nHj8iJdI In my first talk I focused on the the role of scarce means (conflictable resources) in action. I had to finish my talk before turning to the second part of action one needs to analyze to fully understand property rights and the intellectual property debate: the knowledge that guides actors in the use of means. In this second part, "Fireside chat between Stephan Kinsella and Albert Lu," I picked up on where I left off in Part 1, and briefly discuss the knowledge aspect of action, and apply this understanding of the nature and structure of human action in detail to IP. (I've known Albert for year and previously appeared on his podcast.)  (( KOL193 | The Economy with Albert Lu: On IP and Double Counting (3/3) KOL192 | The Economy with Albert Lu: On the Legal Significance of Ownership (2/3) KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3) KOL171 | With Albert Lu Discussing Stossel and IP KOL139 | Power and Market Report with Albert Lu: Law, Careers, Scholarship; Intellectual Property Law Policy, Law, and Career )) Slides, video, transcript below. For more on this, see Libertarian and Lockean Creationism: Creation As a Source of Wealth, not Property Rights; Hayek’s “Fund of Experience”; the Distinction Between Scarce Means and Knowledge as Guides to Action and, for the application of this framework and approach to IP, see The Problem with Intellectual Property. My topic is similar to some recent ones, to-wit: KOL259 | “How To Think About Property,” New Hampshire Liberty Forum 2019 and KOL420 | There Ain’t No Intellectual Property: The Personal Story of a Discovery (PFS 2023). For relevant background see also Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023), e.g. chs. 2, 9, 14, 15, et pass. The audio is from my iphone. I will replace it with the video and better audio at a later date. I have replaced the podcast audio with the better audio. The video is forthcoming. Powerpoint slides (Powerpoint - pptx file): Rick Rule and Albert Lu a few weeks ago on the conference: https://www.youtube.com/live/9I_GfpnkAiU?si=-YNX1ZbYwOyaXURN&t=972 Grok shownotes: Introduction and Context [0:13] Albert Lu opens the fireside chat by expressing pleasure in reuniting with Stephan Kinsella after eight years, highlighting their late-night email exchanges and Kinsella's expertise in intellectual property (IP) from a libertarian viewpoint. Lu sets the stage for discussing IP, Kinsella's specialty, which was not covered in the prior talk, and shares his own background as an engineer involved in patents 30 years ago. Engineer’s Perspective on Patents [1:04] Lu recounts his experiences dealing with patent attorneys, illustrating how the process crystallizes the case against IP. He describes typical interactions where attorneys push for broad, vague claims to block competition, leading to absurd patents like the iPhone's rounded corners. This stifles innovation, as engineers must navigate "landmines" of existing patents, favoring large companies with portfolios for cross-licensing while disadvantaging small innovators. Mechanics of Patents and Their Impact [5:19] Kinsella explains patent drafting, where claims start broad and narrow down, debunking the myth that patents disclose useful information—they are written obscurely to confuse competitors. He criticizes the "patent bargain" as one-sided, granting monopolies without true disclosure, as products reveal workings upon sale. Large firms build patent "war chests," leading to costly lawsuits, cross-licensing, oligopolies, higher prices, and barriers for small inventors. Arguments for and Against Intellectual Property [9:35] Kinsella outlines utilitarian and natural rights arguments for patents: the former claims monopolies incentivize R&D to fix "market failure," but lacks evidence and creates government-backed monopolies conflicting with antitrust laws. The natural rights argument, rooted in Locke's labor theory, mistakenly treats labor as ownable. Kinsella argues ownership arises from homesteading or contracts, not creation, and IP conflicts with scarce resource rights, restricting knowledge which guides action but isn't ownable. Patents as Restrictions on Property Use [19:44] Lu prompts Kinsella to elaborate on how patents prevent manipulation of one's own property. Kinsella responds that liberty presumes freedom unless infringing others' rights, but patents grant non-consensual restrictions, akin to negative servitudes without agreement. Examples include copyrights on yoga poses or tattoos, effectively claiming partial ownership over others' bodies or resources, violating true property rights. Willful Violation and Systemic Issues [27:17] Lu discusses how engineers are advised not to read patents to avoid "willful" infringement penalties, contradicting disclosure claims and encouraging ignorance. Kinsella agrees, noting this fosters dishonesty in fields like music copyrights, where influences are denied to evade liability. He extends this to defamation law, a form of IP, which amplifies lies by implying unlitigated claims are true. Historical Perspectives on Intellectual Property [29:19] Lu shifts to the Founding Fathers, noting Ben Franklin's refusal to patent inventions like bifocals to spread ideas freely. Kinsella recalls Franklin and Jefferson (an inventor and first patent examiner) declining patents. He shares Jefferson's quote likening knowledge to a candle flame—sharing doesn't diminish the original—highlighting knowledge's non-scarce nature versus physical theft. The Founders intuited IP flaws, possibly from British monopolies, though the Constitution authorized it, benefiting the educated class. Conclusion [31:56] Lu wraps up the chat, thanking Kinsella and the audience as time runs out. Transcript: Fireside Chat with Stephan Kinsella and Albert Lu Below is the cleaned-up transcript of the fireside chat between Stephan Kinsella and Albert Lu, identified as Part 2 of the discussion related to KOL471: What is Property? What is Not?, with topical section headings, timestamps, and speaker indications. Introduction and Context 0:13 [0:13] Albert Lu: Thank you, Jayant. It’s a pleasure to sit down with my friend Stephan. I haven’t seen him in about eight years since I moved from Houston. I’ve learned a lot from him over the years, and just yesterday, after his talk, we exchanged emails late into the night. I want to discuss intellectual property, his specialty, as we didn’t cover it in his earlier talk. His libertarian perspective offers valuable insights. First, I’ll share my experience as an engineer dealing with patent attorneys, which primed me for Stephan’s case against intellectual property. Engineer’s Perspective on Patents 1:04 [1:04] Albert Lu: Thirty years ago, I was involved in patents as an engineer. Dealing with patent attorneys crystallized the case against intellectual property for me. Typically, you sit down, and the attorney says, “Tell me about your invention.” You start, “I’ve got this thing,” and they interrupt, “Stop. You can’t patent ‘thing.’” You describe what it does, and they push for the broadest claims to prevent competition. This leads to absurd patents, like the iPhone’s rounded corners. Engineers must navigate these “landmines,” which stifles innovation. Only big companies with patent portfolios can cross-license, leaving small innovators at a disadvantage. [4:05] Albert Lu: That’s my practical case against intellectual property, but Stephan has a well-constructed legal framework. I’d like him to explain it. To preface, his earlier talk focused on property rights and scarce resources, but didn’t cover knowledge, which guides action. Combining these concepts clarifies the case against intellectual property. [4:23] Stephan Kinsella: My earlier talk discussed how humans use scarce resources in action, but I didn’t cover knowledge, the second key aspect guiding behavior. Property rights apply only to scarce resources, not knowledge, which underpins the case against intellectual property. My book, Legal Foundations of a Free Society, available free online at stephankinsella.com or on Amazon, elaborates on this. Mechanics of Patents and Their Impact 5:19 [5:19] Stephan Kinsella: In patent law, we learn to draft claims defining the invention’s scope, starting broad and narrowing down. The claim is that patents disclose valuable information, but this is nonsense. Applications are written obscurely to confuse competitors, who spend time avoiding infringement rather than learning. The “patent bargain” grants a 17-year monopoly for disclosure, but most products inevitably reveal their workings when sold, making the bargain one-sided—a monopoly to block competitors. Large corporations amass patent war chests, leading to lawsuits, cross-licensing, and reduced competition. This creates oligopolies, raises consumer prices, and stifles small innovators who lack resources to litigate. Arguments for and Against Intellectual Property 9:35 [9:35] Stephan Kinsella: Patents destroy innovation and grant state-backed monopolies. The utilitarian argument claims monopolies incentivize R&D by protecting profits, alleging market failure without them. There’s no evidence for this, and true monopolies arise from government grants like patents. Antitrust laws paradoxically penalize patent misuse, creating a schizophrenic system. The natural rights argument, rooted in Locke’s labor theory, claims creators own their inventions. This stems from a flawed assumption that labor is ownable. You own your body and its actions,...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 471. This is my talk this morning at Jayant Bhandari's (@JayantBhandari5) Capitalism & Morality 2025 (Vancouver) conference. It was followed later that day by Part 2, Fireside Chat with Albert Lu, whose podcast I've been on in the past. (( KOL193 | The Economy with Albert Lu: On IP and Double Counting (3/3); KOL192 | The Economy with Albert Lu: On the Legal Significance of Ownership (2/3); KOL191 | The Economy with Albert Lu: Can You Own Bitcoin? (1/3); KOL171 | With Albert Lu Discussing Stossel and IP; KOL139 | Power and Market Report with Albert Lu: Law, Careers, Scholarship; Intellectual Property Law Policy, Law, and Career. )) https://youtu.be/4CXQqoIkH6c?si=nehs8FZhBkUnpwOq The audio is from my iphone. I will replace it with the video and better audio at a later date. The video is up (see above). I have replaced the podcast audio with the better audio. In my talk I focused on the the role of scarce means (conflictable resources) in action. I had to finish my talk before turning to the second part of action one needs to analyze to fully understand property rights and the intellectual property debate: the knowledge that guides actors in the use of means. In my view, this talk, along with Part 2, is one of my better presentations of this important issue. I'm getting a bit better as I get older, because I'm maturing in my thought and integrating lots of interrelated ideas, I've developed more  mastery of this material and have had a lot of experience explaining these ideas,  and by now have gotten more comfortable speaking, something I have never really especially liked doing and something that used to make me very nervous. No longer. For Part 2, see KOL472 | “What Is Property? And What Is Not? — Part 2 — Fireside Chat on Intellectual Property with Albert Lu," Capitalism & Morality (Vancouver). My topic is similar to that of some recent presentations, to-wit: KOL259 | “How To Think About Property,” New Hampshire Liberty Forum 2019 and KOL420 | There Ain’t No Intellectual Property: The Personal Story of a Discovery (PFS 2023). For further background see Legal Foundations of a Free Society, chs. 2, 9, 14, 15; Libertarian and Lockean Creationism: Creation As a Source of Wealth, not Property Rights; Hayek’s “Fund of Experience”; the Distinction Between Scarce Means and Knowledge as Guides to Action and, for the application of this framework and approach to IP, see The Problem with Intellectual Property. Shownotes, slides, video, and photos below. Shownotes by Grok: Event Introduction and Societal Reflections The talk begins with Jayant Bhandari welcoming attendees to the Capitalism and Morality Seminar, reflecting on its inception in 2010 and the open-mindedness of Western culture that allowed such events. He contrasts this with his experiences growing up in a "hellhole" and warns of Canada's declining safety and emerging bureaucratic hurdles, like security questionnaires for controversial speakers. Bhandari emphasizes the divide between savagery and civilization over socialism versus capitalism, urging society to heed the speakers amid systemic crises. Kinsella's Background and Intellectual Journey Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian attorney and intellectual property expert, shares his evolution from Ayn Rand's influence to anarcho-libertarianism shaped by Rothbard, Mises, and Hoppe. As a patent lawyer, he initially sought to justify intellectual property (IP) but concluded it's unjustifiable after deep research, leading to his book Legal Foundations of a Free Society. He humorously notes the radical yet innocuous nature of his talks and stresses rethinking core concepts like property to resolve IP puzzles. Clarifying Property Terminology and Rights Kinsella delves into precise definitions, explaining that "property" refers to rights in things, not the things themselves—derived from Latin "proprius" meaning "one's own." He distinguishes property rights as the right to exclude others, not unlimited use, using examples like fist-swinging or gun ownership to show they limit actions, not other property rights. He critiques common misuses, like calling ideas "property," and highlights Hoppe's view of property as foundational to social sciences, defining aggression, contracts, socialism, and capitalism. Distinction Between Possession and Ownership Drawing on Robinson Crusoe hypotheticals, Kinsella differentiates possession (physical control, applicable even in isolation) from ownership (normative rights emerging in society to support possession against interference). He explains human action per Mises involves using scarce resources to alleviate uneasiness and change the future, with property rights providing normative backing. Mises' terms like "catallactic ownership" (possession) versus "juristic ownership" underscore this, noting economists often conflate them. Emergence and Principles of Property Rights Kinsella traces property rights' evolution in systems like Roman and English common law, emphasizing original appropriation (homesteading), contracts, and self-ownership as core principles to resolve conflicts over scarce resources. Every society has property rules identifying owners, even if unjust like in dictatorships. Libertarians advocate consistent application to oppose aggression, with socialism as institutionalized interference. He concludes by inviting questions, reinforcing property's role in peaceful cooperation. Powerpoint slides (Powerpoint - pptx file): Photos: *** Rick Rule and Albert Lu a few weeks ago on the conference: https://www.youtube.com/live/9I_GfpnkAiU?si=-YNX1ZbYwOyaXURN&t=972   YOUTUBE TRANSCRIPT cleaned up by Grok Transcript: What is Property? What is Not? Below is the cleaned-up transcript of Stephan Kinsella’s talk at the Capitalism and Morality Seminar, with topical section headings and timestamps aligned with the original YouTube transcript. Introduction and Event Logistics 0:02 A while ago, I gave a presentation. If you want, I can share it, but it might disturb the video recording, as the videographer may struggle to integrate it. It’s better not to use the presentation, as the screen can complicate things. The videographer can add it later if needed. I can send you the video when it’s done, as my videos tend to get watched later. Welcome to the Capitalism and Morality Seminar 1:04 [JAYANT BHANDARI] Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. My name is Jayant Bhandari, and I want to welcome you to this year’s Capitalism and Morality Seminar. When I first launched this seminar in 2010, I asked the university events manager if hosting a libertarian gathering on campus would be acceptable, unsure if these viewpoints would be welcomed. I suspected she leaned left, so I wanted to ensure she wouldn’t cause trouble. In the spirit of Western culture, she was open-minded and responded that what we discussed inside the room was our business. Despite living in the West for a long time, this openness still surprises me. Back then, the university required me to use their preferred videographer, who charged a significant fee. When I explained I couldn’t afford it, the events manager reiterated that what we did inside the room was none of her business. I’ve heard this sentiment often in Western society, where even bureaucrats bend rules to do the right thing. I grew up in a hellhole, and I see that hellhole slowly arriving in Canada, a trend I’ve discussed for years. Observations on Societal Decline 2:50 Today, we faced logistical issues: the IT person and coffee were missing, causing a half-hour delay. Unlike many in this audience, I see things differently because of my background. For me, the divide is not between socialism and capitalism—often debated as Swedish socialism versus American capitalism—but between savagery and civilization. Western society will face a reckoning in the coming years due to decades of misguided policies. I no longer live in Vancouver because I see what’s coming. When I moved here 20 years ago, it was a safe city with minimal major crime, but much has changed. This year, for the first time, I had to complete a security questionnaire about bringing controversial or politically connected speakers. Things are changing rapidly, and it scares me. I guarantee that within a few years, you’ll face issues like air conditioning failures and power outages—systemic crises I recognize from experience. I hope Canadian society listens to today’s speakers. Our schedule is tight, and we’re 35 minutes behind, so I’ll cut lunch time to compensate. I’ll keep speaker introductions brief to maximize their speaking time. Introduction of Stephan Kinsella 5:28 Our first speaker is Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian attorney and intellectual property expert from Houston. He’s authored numerous books and publications on international investment, political risk, dispute resolution, and property rights. He’s also a key figure at Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s conference in Turkey. Please welcome Stephan Kinsella. Stephan Kinsella’s Opening Remarks 6:08 [STEPHAN KINSELLA] Thank you, Jayant. I’m going digital with my notes today. It’s always impressive to speak on a Saturday morning to professional, busy people listening to a patent attorney discuss property rights without academic credit—you’re not even forced to be here. As for controversial speakers, I’ve spoken at Yale twice and Berkeley once without protesters. I’m almost offended because my talks seem innocuous, though they’re radical beneath the surface. People don’t get worked up about intellectual property or property rights because they don’t grasp the implications. I’m glad to be here. I’ve known Jayant for years and have spoken at this event multiple times. I’m not a great speaker, as you’ll discover, but I no longer get nervous—maybe because I’m older or more confident in the topic....

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 468. Related: Libertarian Answer Man: Co-ownership and Ownership and Punishment of Criminals Libertarian Answer Man: Joint Ownership (Co-ownership) and Future, Conditional Title Transfers Armoutidis, Who Owns Public Property? Libertarian Property Theory and the Problem of Immigration From a Twitter Space organized by @Kasimir, joined by LiquidZulu and others. I believe I was supposed to host a Zoom call at 8am this Sat. morning but I overslept (since I am dealing with a family issue) so joined this conversation late, about 90 minutes in, and chimed in sporadically. https://youtu.be/ZhiKkaJOulM Related: Libertarian Answer Man: Co-ownership and Ownership and Punishment of Criminals On “Unowned” State Property, Legal Positivism, Ownership vs. Possession Libertarian Answer Man: Restrictive Covenants, Reserved Rights, and Copyright On easements from encircled plots of land: The Blockean Proviso Down With the Lockean Proviso Łukasz Dominiak, “The Blockian Proviso and the Rationality of Property Rights“ LiquidZulu, Homesteading and Property Rights Dominiak, “The Blockian Proviso and the Rationality of Property Rights” ——, Must Right-Libertarians Embrace Easements by Necessity? Update: Co-ownership is quite possible in the law. It's not especially magical or difficult. See La. Civ. Code arts 477, 797, et pass. See excerpts from Gregory W. Rome, Civil Law Property Outline & Case Briefs: Keyed to Yiannopoulos' Civil Law Property Coursebook 10th edition (2025): Co-ownership. a. Ownership in indivision is “[o]wnership of the same thing by two or more persons.” La. C. art. 797. The right of each owner bears upon the whole of the thing held in indivision. The fundamental rules of co-ownership in indivision include: Co-owners own the entire property with one Each co-owner’s share does not have to be equal. Under Louisiana law, a co-owner is prohibited from unilateral acts concerning the property except for acts of use and acts of preservation. Other acts require unanimous consent or a court order. “The use and management of the thing held in indivision is determined by agreement of all the co-owners.” La. C.C. art. 801. “When the mode of use and management of the thing held in indivision is not determined by an agreement of all the co-owners and partition is not available, a court, upon petition by a co-owner, may determine the use and ” La. C.C. art. 803. A co-owner may petition the court for an order regarding the use and manage- ment of co-owned property where the co-owners cannot agree and the property is already being offered for sale because the normal remedy — partition — is practically unavailable. Succession of Miller. “A co-owner may freely lease, alienate, or encumber his share of the thing held in indivision. The consent of all the co-owners is required for the lease, alienation, or encumbrance of the entire thing held in indivision.” La. C.C. art. 805. A co-owner may freely use the entire property for its customary purpose but may not interfere with the other co-owners’ right to use it La. C.C. art. 802. If the co-owners cannot agree on how to use the property, their remedy is partition. One co-owner may receive an injunction prohibiting another co-owner from deliberately denying her the equal and coextensive use of a part of the com- monly held property. LeBlanc v. Scurto. “A co-owner may without the concurrence of any other co-owner take necessary steps for the preservation of the thing that is held in ” La. C.C. Art. 800. Preservation implies a danger of decay, deterioration, or impending The acts should be taken to preserve a thing rather than to alter it or its eco- nomic purpose. The necessity of the acts, their sufficiency, and their proportionality to the dan- ger should be judged by an objective prudent-man standard. Acts of preservation may be taken without the consent of the other co-owners and over their objections. Acts taken under this article are taken in the actor’s own name, and not in the name of his co-owners without their consent. A co-owner may not substantially change the property or devote it to a new use without the unanimous consent of the other co-owners. A co-owner’s failure to object to an exceptional use or activity on the property after learning of it ordinarily constitutes his tacit consent to those A co-owner who makes an unsanc- tioned use of the property may be liable to the other co-owners for any damage he causes — for example, diminution of the value of the property. “Co-owners share the fruits and products of the thing held in indivision in propor- tion to their When fruits or products are produced by a co-owner, other co-owners are entitled to their shares of the fruits or products after deduction of the costs of production.” La. C.C. art. 798. But a co-owner is never liable for losses or   expenses incurred by the other co-owners in connection with activities on the land in which he has not agreed to participate. In any case, a co-owner may not charge his co-owners for his personal services in producing or gathering the income. A co-owner must pay his proportionate share of the reasonable costs for maintain- ing and preserving the property. A co-owner may seek to partition the property at any time, and agreements to the contrary are valid only under certain circumstances and for limited times. Expenses. “A co-owner who on account of the thing held in indivision has incurred necessary expenses, expenses for ordinary maintenance and repairs, or necessary man- agement expenses paid to a third person, is entitled to reimbursement from the other co-owners in proportion to their shares.” La C.C. art. 806. Necessary expenses include expenses incurred for the preservation of a thing and for the discharge of private or public burdens, other than those incurred for ordinary maintenance and repairs — e.g., property taxes and assessments, indispensable repairs and maintenance costs, litigation costs for the preservation of the property, and insurance costs. Useful expenses, which are expenses that are not needed for the preservation of a thing but enhance its value — e.g., ordinary repairs. Contrast Luxurious expenses, which are expenses made to gratify one’s personal Unjust enrichment. Article 806 does not override the doctrines of unjust enrich- ment or negotiorum gestio, and one co-owner may be able to recover the enhanced value of the thing from the others if the requirements of either doctrine are met. There is some authority to suggest the doctrine of negotio gestorum does not apply between co-owners. Some of the jurisprudence interpreting article 2297 reads it to require reim- bursement only for expenses that are both “necessary and ” But there is also jurisprudence to the contrary. Indirect rent. “If the co-owner who incurred the expenses had the enjoyment of the thing held in indivision, his reimbursement shall be reduced in proportion to the value of the enjoyment.” La. C.C. art. 806. “A co-owner is liable to his co-owner for any damage to the thing held in indivision caused by his fault.” La. C.C. art. 799. “Substantial alterations or substantial improvements to the thing held in indivision may be undertaken only with the consent of all the co-owners. When a co-owner makes sub- stantial alterations or substantial improvements consistent with the use of the property, though without the express or implied consent of his co-owners, the rights of the parties shall be determined by Article 496 [as if he were a good-faith possessor]. When a co- owner makes substantial alterations or substantial improvements inconsistent with the use of the property or in spite of the objections of his co-owners, the rights of the parties shall be determined by Article 497 [as if he were a bad-faith possessor].” C.C. art. 804. Property held by spouses under a community property regime are subject to many spe- cial rules of co-ownership.   Partition. “No one may be compelled to hold a thing in indivision with another unless the contrary has been provided by law or juridical act. Any co-owner has a right to demand partition of a thing held in Partition may be excluded by agreement for up to fifteen years, or for such other period as provided” by law. La. C.C. art. 807. Partition may be made by agreement — a conventional partition — or judicially. Update: In response to the criticism by some of co-ownership, they mention some critiques of Hoppe and Rothbard of egalitarianism. See e.g.: It's actually in Hoppes' introduction to the Ethics of Liberty. Obviously, it's a little different since it's talking about universal co-ownership and not just co-ownership, but the heart of the objection applies to both pic.twitter.com/hq2OuEMhwb — ZⒶRK (@TheLostOddity) August 18, 2025 I will quote some of the relevant material below but it suffices to observe that the problems to noted by Hoppe and Rothbard below, of egalitarianism or "universal equal and other-ownership," are simply not present when two or more people distribute rights between each other by contract. Even Rothbard acknowledges this by accepting the "bundle of rights" view of rights in his confused argument for IP rights. (( The Problem with Intellectual Property, Part III.C.2. )) If there is a clear contract between co-owners, there is no problem of everyone dying because everyone has to wait for everyone else before using a resource, for example. From Stephan Kinsella, "How We Come To Own Ourselves," in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) [LFFS]: In the text above, I noted that “first use” is not the ultimate test for the “objective link” in the case of body ownership,...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 430. This is my presentation, “An Insider’s Introduction to Austrian Economics,” Bastiat Society—Houston, American Institute for Economic Research, The Briar Club, Houston Texas (May 2, 2024). From their shownotes: Join AIER’s Bastiat Society program in Houston for an event with Stephan Kinsella, libertarian writer and registered patent attorney in Houston. Mr. Kinsella is both an internationally recognized scholar on libertarian legal theory and a former Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute. The Mises Institute’s purpose is to promote teaching and research in the Austrian school of economics in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. In the foreword to Stephan’s most recent book, Legal Foundations of a Free Society, the great Austrian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe said, “Henceforth, then, all essential studies in the philosophy of law and the field of legal theory will have to take full account of the theories and criticisms expounded by Kinsella.” Stephan will be introducing Austrian economics that is in part shaped by the rare insights one can only get as a scholar and insider. This is my first talk on a purely economic topic. I tried not to dumb it down but also not talk over people's heads, but I only had 45 minutes. This is the recording I made on my iphone. My notes: An Insider’s Introduction to Austrian Economics Stephan Kinsella The Bastiat Society—Houston, American Institute for Economic Research The Briar Club, Houston Texas May 2, 2024 Some of you may have heard in recent years of “Austrian economics” Used to be relatively obscure Now most people into Bitcoin are into it Most libertarians are into it Most Austrians happen to be libertarians too But they are distinct: you can be an Austrian and not a libertarian, but it’s rare; or a libertarian and know nothing about economics Ron Paul has been promoting it for decades “End the Fed!” Recently it’s making more of a surge For example, recently the Brazilian UFC fighter Renato Moicano, after winning a recent UFC fight, shouted out: “I love private property and let me tell you something, if you care about your country, read Ludwig von Mises and the six lessons of the Austrian economic school” I thought it was an AI “deepfake” at first, but no…. https://tomwoods.com/ep-2483-ufcs-renato-moicano-and-mises-six-lessons/ And of course Javier Milei, the new libertarian President of Argentina, is a self-proclaimed Austrian economist How did I get interested in it I am not an economist, but I’ve studied Austrian economics for 30 years Had to take an introductory course in economics as an engineer Immediately saw the problems with the Phillips curve Why would all the homeless or unemployed people dying overnight necessarily imply price inflation? Made no sense to me The professor: well the curve would just shift. I read Ayn Rand. Jerome Tuccille: It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand. In her Capitalism book, she recommended books by Mises, and other books like Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, so one thing led to the other Over the years I’ve focused on developing libertarian legal theory but I have relied heavily on Austrian economics thinking For example, my new book Legal Foundations of a Free Society rests heavily on Austrian economic thinking Economics as a Science Austrian economics views economics as a science What is science? A systematic study of a type of phenomenon, of a realm of phenomenon We nowadays think of “science” as basically physics and the “testable” empirical sciences But there are axiomatic-deductive sciences, like the laws of applied logic—where propositions are not “tested” And then, there are empirical sciences, like physics: where the “scientific method” is followed: scientists see results, they provide a hypothesis about the possible underlying causal factors, and come up with experiments that can confirm or falsify the hypothesis, the proposed explanation. We are nowadays used to thinking of science only as the empirical or causal sciences, and relegating philosophy and other fields to the “humanities”: not real science. e. we are used to thinking of science now as physics, or technology This shows the dominance of the idea of logical positivism, for perhaps the last 70 years or so But consider psychology, law, philosophy and logic, and the older conception of economics. They were considered sciences though not “testable.” Just different. Different domains of application. e., you study every phenomenon with methods appropriate to the nature of the thing being studied. Humans are not the same as animals, or atoms! Unlike atoms, we have free will, purposes and goals Unlike animals, we have conscience and high-level conceptual understanding In fact the word science just means knowledge, from the Latin scientia. Think of words like “conscience”—with knowledge—or “scienter” in the law. In fact the original Copyright Clause of the US Constitution authorizes copyright law (books) to protect the “sciences” and patent law (inventions) to protect the “arts.” “Science” back then meant knowledge, or books The “arts” meant inventions of “artisans.” So the meaning then was backward to current usage, where science means technology and STEM, and “the arts” means books, plays, and so on The rise of what Hayek criticized as scientism in the mid-1900s is why people now think of science only as applying to the natural sciences, like physics and chemistry, and relegate other fields of study to the humanities or liberal arts. Think of the Covid crisis: “follow the science” And yet philosophy itself is prior to the scientific method itself Consider: when Karl Popper and his logical positivist followers say that the only meaningful and scientific statements are those that are falsifiable by experiment, —what is their proof of this very statement itself? After all, it is a foundational approach, it is not itself subject to empirical testing. By its own terms, it is unscientific. So the scientific method itself has to rest on philosophical principles which are not themselves testable, they are not subject to the scientific method itself What this means is that basic philosophy has to precede inquiry in the natural sciences. Physics rests on philosophical foundations. Philosophy must come first. An axiomatic, apriori, and deductive system underlies all of empirical enquiry. Philosophy and the natural sciences are all important but philosophy is primus inter pares: first among equals. The reason we think of “science” now as restricted to the natural sciences, is because of the logical positivism revolution in the 1950s. Mainline economics started rejecting its apriorist and deductivist roots and attempted to adopt or “ape” the methods of physics to seem “scientific,” since the conception of what “science” was had changed. They said that the only meaningful or “scientific” statements are those that are testable, falsifiable, refutable in an experiment or with data And so you will hear that some economist has come out with a paper that shows that actually, increasing the minimum wage does not cause unemployment at all. Any economist worth his salt knows this is wrong. We know supply and demand. Price controls lead to shortages. Minimum wage necessarily causes unemployment. The higher the minimum wage, the more unemployment that is caused. We know this by reason, not by experience or data Imagine a $100 per hour minimum wage! For this reason the proponents of minimum wage rarely ask for a very large minimum wage. They seem to realize that at a certain point, it would cause so much economic devastation that people would wake up. Consider also the very idea of exchange. A and B exchange things. They must both think they are better off by doing the trade. Otherwise they would not trade. That is where “profit” comes from. Each values the thing obtained from the other more than the thing he gave up. A merchant who sells a cake values the money he receives more than the cake he gave up. The customer has the opposite preference ranking. After the trade, each one has more wealth, i.e. is richer. More wealth has been created in the world just by virtue of a trade, even though no one created any new product or thing. How could any empirical study falsify this? It’s inherent in the nature of exchange and human interaction. Economics looks at the actor’s purpose and goals to explain each actor’s actions by talking about their goals or ends or purposes—that is, teleologically: by reference to their purposes. What is Economics and why does it matter? “Economics has been defined in a variety of ways. In the nineteenth century it was typically defined as the science of wealth or exchangeable wealth. In the twentieth century, it has typically been defined as the science that studies the allocation of scarce means among competing ends.” From Reisman’s definition of wealth in Capitalism, https://stephankinsella.com/reisman/ See also Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations By the we need to be clear on what wealth is: is the the availability of means to satisfy human desires. Wealth is not money. Money can be a measure of wealth but it is not wealth itself. Increasing the supply of food or houses makes people wealthier. Increasing the supply of money just increases prices. Money is not wealth. It is a unique type of good. For capital goods, or consumer goods: the more, the better. Not so with money. In other words, we live in a world where people live together and interact, trade and exchange. There is a division and specialization of labor There is money,...

An audio version of my 2009 article, “What Libertarianism Is,” Mises Daily (August 21, 2009), has been produced, narrated by Graham Wright (audio file). Update: See also the version by Duma Denga of ManPatria (KOL422).

I was a guest last night on FreeTalkLive (Sunday, Aug. 21, 2011), discussing intellectual property with Sunday hosts Mark Edge and Stephanie. We talked for about an hour and a half, from 7pm-830pm EDT and had a good, wide-ranging discussion. A few callers called in near the end. This was the FTL debut on XM satellite radio's "Extreme Talk", XM 165. The show is now available on the podcast feed here (local MP3) (KOL082).

André Roberfroid, President of Association Montessori Internationale I've discussed my thoughts on the Montessori educational method previously (see my article Montessori, Peace, and Libertarianism; also my posts Montessori and “Unschooling”; Bullying and Libertarianism; Libertarian Parenting–A Freedomain Radio Conversation). Last week the excellent KERA radio program "Think" had a great interview with André Roberfroid, President of Association Montessori Internationale, about the Montessori method: "Education Today and Tomorrow." He does a good job of explaining the beauty and benefits of the Montessori approach (though he does have some confused notions about expanding the public school sector; these confused political views, it seems to me, are orthogonal to his educational ideas, and can be ignored). The interview is here; and the podcast can be found on iTunes here.

Some humorous emails from my legal blog: Professional Courtesy August 20, 2004 According to the attorney who sent it to me: this was a voicemail message “that an associate at Winston & Strawn left for an associate at Latham. Latham is representing a borrower in a real estate transaction and W&S; represents the lender. I don’t know what correspondence preceded the voicemail but as I understand it, W&S; asked Latham to make some cosmetic changes to mortgages a day before closing and Latham responded by email that they thought the changes were unnecessary. The response from W&S; is pretty unbelievable–a pretty abusive voicemail. This is soon to be part of law firm urban legend along with that summer associate from Skadden [I earlier guessed--wrongly--that they meant here Tucker Max's hilarious story, "The Now Infamous Tucker Max Charity Auction Debacle", about how Max got fired when he was a summer associate at the California law firm Fenwick & West during the dot-com boom times --SK]–it’s already making it’s way around the email circuit. Enjoy!” And along those lines, an oldie but a goodie: Voicemail message [audio], with increasingly frustrated obscenities, purportedly left by trademark applicant/appellant with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB); resulting Final Order concerning disciplinary action of the attorney (linked here). Update: Here is an official Response from an Examiner at the patent office employing obscenity. Associate’s Foulmouthed Voicemail Makes the Rounds on the Internet August 24, 2004 Re my previous post–this article appeared today in New York Lawyer, listing my blog as a source of the voicemail left by Winston & Strawn associate Ankur Gupta [voicemail here]. I despise incompetence so actually tend to side with Gupta. Some excerpts from the article: An expletive-laden voice-mail message, reproduced on blog KinsellaLaw.com, left by an associate at one law firm for a colleague at another is making the rounds in cyberspace, with young lawyers seizing on the message as a symbol of declining civility within the profession. In the message, Winston & Strawn associate Ankur Gupta in Chicago berates an associate in the New York office of Latham & Watkins for apparently complaining about changes Mr. Gupta and his colleagues requested on a mortgage document. Mr. Gupta tells his fellow lawyer that he should save his “[f**king] breath” and that if he continues to complain about the changes, Mr. Gupta will make his “life on this deal very unpleasant” by involving his client. The Winston & Strawn associate concludes by advising the Latham associate that if he will not act as a “monkey [f**king] scribe,” his work will be given to a secretary at Winston & Strawn. Forwarded to lawyers across the nation, the message has unleashed a firestorm of Internet message board commentary. In my view, all this noise about “the decline in civility” is part and parcel of lawyers’ attempt to keep their profession licensed so as to keep out competition. It is arrogance to believe civility is more the domain of attorneys than “normal” people. Re: Associate’s Foulmouthed Voicemail Makes the Rounds on the Internet August 25, 2004 Re my previous post, Chicago Sun-Times reporter Eric Herman has picked this up story and is running with it, in F-bomb-dropping attorney gets worldwide notoriety [alternative link]. Coda: others have picked it up too, including this one from The Chicagoist, Lawyers Drop F-Bombs?, which includes some decent gossip about the “victim” and interestingly, some off the cuff defenses of the angry attorney. Another discussion forum is on MyShingle. Lawyers and Summer Associates August 25, 2004 Re recent posts about humorous lawyer voicemails, I was reminded of this story: Elite Firm Summer Associate Sends E-Mail Boasting Of Laziness to Partners. More on humorous voicemails August 27, 2004 Following up on recent posts about humorous voicemails and emails, here’s another humorous voicemail. The story behind the voicemail is explained here, and in the letter below. Mr. Kinsella: I stumbled over this website courtesy of an article about the recent humorous voicemail and couldn’t resist writing you to share something amusing that happened to our company. Our Austin-based company, Despair Inc., produces cynical humor products- including parodies of motivational posters called Demotivators. Anyway, our logo features the emoticon–which we obviously did not invent but nevertheless submitted a trademark request for to the USPTO. To our surprise (and our IP lawyer’s amazement), we received a trademark for the symbol in printed matter class of goods. As a joke, we wrote a fake press release about how–in light of our trademark on the symbol–we planned to sue several million individuals who had used the symbol in email of late. It was mostly meant as a rip on frivolous IP lawsuits. But because of some clumsy reporting and overzealous netizens, it ended up becoming a gigantic outrage to many thousands of people who missed the joke. The most amusing contact we received came in the form of a late-night voicemail from someone who sounded very drunk. http://www.despair.com/frownies.html The voicemail is linked in the page above. It is expletive-laden and frequently incoherent–but provoked gales of laughter and ultimately, the desire to share the joke with others. We bleeped out the expletives–as we’re a pretty family-friendly website–but even without them, it’s a very amusing and confusing listen, though admittedly, for a somewhat select audience. Hope you enjoy it. Cheers, Justin Sewell Despair, Inc.   Cold Callers December 2, 2004 I hate cold callers and people who waste my time. My employer’s web site does not list my phone number. That’s on purpose. People whom I have not given my direct dial number have to call the main number and ask the receptionist for me. So when the receptionist wants to patch a call through, I know it’s almost always a cold caller. Today she says a guy named “Mo” is calling for me. Red flag#1. I know no Mo, so red flag #2. Usually I tell her to put them to my voicemail, but the name “Mo” intrigued me and I was feeling in a mood to mess with a cold coller. I tell her to patch him through. Mo–he does not give his last name, red flag #3–is some broker for some “patent technology acquisition” group (I forget the name). He wants to know if we have an interest in buying a patent on photonic integrated circuits. Now we make lasers, not PICs. Another red flag. Curious, I ask him how much they are selling the patent for. He says it has 61 claims and that there is an offer on it already–setting me up for a high number–then says probably only $120K or so, which is not really that high. I say, well, what’s the patent number? He says he does not have it and I can hear him flipping papers looking for it. He asks me if that’s public information. I.e., if he can find the number is it okay to give it to me. This loser is asking me for legal advice. So I’m already getting irritated. Why would you call someone to offer to sell a patent but not know the patent number. So it’s clear to me that Arab-accented Mo (probably Mohammed) is just trying to put a deal together. Some stupid broker. Probably unknown to the seller as well as me. My time already wasted, I decide to mess with him. I ask him why he thinks this would be useful for us. He says he knows we bought an external-cavity laser patent recently, from a press release, so thought we might want this. This makes no sense. I ask, is there an existing infringer? Do we infringe? Does it cover some practical invention? He says yes, it covers a practical application and can “help us.” I say, “help us how? We make lasers.” He says, “yeah, it does that.” “Does what?” I ask. “Makes lasers,” he replies. “I don’t think so,” I say. “How does an integrated circuit make a laser?” “Well, the laser goes in it,” he tries to clarify. I say, “I don’t think you understand this technology. That’s okay if you don’t, but just say so.” He gets pissed saying, his Arab accent getting thicker, “You are being rude sir. I have an engineering degree from CalTech and have been in this field for 25 years!” I say, “Well, a photonic integrated circuit does not make lasers, I know that,” and he says, “I went to CalTech” and I reply, “Well, that’s certainly very impressive, but you don’t know the patent number, you don’t know how this applies to our business, you seem to think PICs ‘make’ lasers, which they don’t–all you seem to know is we make lasers and recently bought a laser patent.” He finally loses his patience, and proclaims, “You are rude sir! Rude rude rude! You are a f***ing a**hole!” Well, at least I didn’t call him to waste his time.

UPDATE: SEE KOL079 | “Federalist Society IP Debate (Ohio State)” (2011) Last week I participated in a debate on IP at the The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Student Chapter of The Federalist Society (Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University, Columbus OH, March 3, 2011). This was part of the "John Templeton Foundation’s Big Questions Debate series on Intellectual Property and Wealth Creation”; I debated patent attorney and adjunct IP law professor Steve Grant, who represented the pro-IP side. I recorded it on my iPhone; audio file is here (32MB; the version from the camera's recording is here), though a video version with possibly better audio should be available soon. Professor Grant did his best, but didn't have a solid argument for IP other than the standard "I think we should reform IP but not get rid of it." My opening speech is about 15 minutes and has decent audio quality, and is a summary of a hard-hitting version of the basic libertarian case against IP law (here is the powerpoint presentation I used; embedded version below). Grant's speech is audible but I was not very close to him; but his conventional and unsystematic, more empiricist and positivist than libertarian and principled remarks will be of only mild interest to libertarians. For my 10 or so minute rebuttal to him, I left my iPhone at the table but it's still audible; for the Q&A period, it was in front of me so it's decent again for that part. My host was Aman Sharma, a very staunch libertarian law student and head of the student chapter of the Federalist Society. When I was involved with the Federalist Society (lawyers chapters) in Philadelphia and Houston they were populated with mainly Newt Gingrich loving neocons; good to see some Austro-libertarians infiltrating their ranks. Sharma told me "I had a lot of fellow students approach me after the event with questions showing a new-found interest in the Mises/Austrian worldview." That is cool and gratifying.   While in Ohio, I met my friend Jacob Huebert and other local libertarians/Federalist Society people--including Katelyn Horn and Maurice Thompson, of the 1851 Center, for dinner at Barrio Tapas. A fun trip, and great people.

I was a guest on the Feb. 15, 2011 episode of Thinking Liberty, "an interactive libertarian anarchist talk program." We talked for quite a while about IP; the hosts asked very intelligent questions. (My segment is from about 25:00 to 1:16:00.) (local MP3 file) (KOL Podcast version)

ignroe me. her is file

My article, "Intellectual Freedom and Learning Versus Patent and Copyright," was published today in Economic Notes (No. 113, Jan. 18, 2011), a publication of the UK-based Libertarian Alliance. (This article is based on my speech of Nov. 6, 2010, at the 2010 Students for Liberty Texas Regional Conference, University of Texas, Austin; audio and video versions may be found here; see also below.) [It was previously published on Mises.org; archived comments below; also at Libertarian Standard] In my various publications and speeches about intellectual property (IP), I've approached it from a variety of angles. In this article, I consider the role of information and learning, and the role of property rights, in human action. I use a praxeological analysis to argue that human action employs scarce resources or means, but that action is guided by non-scarce ideas and knowledge. Property rights are recognized in means because they are scarce; but ideas are not scarce things: they are infinitely reproducible. The growing body of knowledge is a boon to mankind. Property rights is needed for scarce means so that they can be peacefully and productively used in action; property rights in ideas restricts, impairs, and impedes learning and the use of information to guide one's actions. Copying information and ideas is not stealing. Learning is not stealing. Using information is not trespass. In this article, I urge young libertarians to stay on the vanguard of intellectual freedom, and to fight the shackles of patent and copyright. Incidentally, my 6-week Mises Academy course “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society” starts at the end of this month (Jan. 31-Mar. 11, 2011). I describe it in my article “Introduction to Libertarian Legal Theory,” Mises Daily (Jan. 3, 2011). [Mises Blog cross-post] Archived comments: Beefcake the Mighty January 18, 2011 at 1:16 pm I wonder how long it will take Silas to make his usual assinine statements. We know he won’t bother actually reading this paper. Reply Stephan Kinsella January 18, 2011 at 1:37 pm He’s been banned from the blog. Reply Beefcake the Mighty January 18, 2011 at 1:41 pm No kidding? What was the final straw? Of course, now he’s crowing about how he’s “won”, that he was banned because his “arguments” couldn’t be refuted, etc. Just can’t win with that guy. Reply Stephan Kinsella January 18, 2011 at 2:16 pm I’m really not sure. It wasn’t my doing (though he outrageously accused me of being behind it, even though I argued in previous bans to have him reinstated). Where’s he crowing about it? Reply Beefcake the Mighty January 18, 2011 at 2:19 pm I don’t actually know that he is; I’m just speculating that he’s viewing this as a badge of honor thing. In the interest of fairness, I retract any suggestion that he is crowing about it (although I can make informed guesses based on his previously observed behavior). Reply Colin Phillips January 19, 2011 at 5:52 am That seems like a mistake. First of all, I’m sure he’s intelligent enough to get around the ban if he wants to, secondly, given his vitriolic temperament it is almost certain that he will do so, and simply use someone else’s name, like that person pretending to be Dave Narby does. I’m pleased to hear it was not your doing, Stephan. Reply Stephan Kinsella January 19, 2011 at 2:23 pm He’s gone by various nyms–John Sharp, Person, Richard Harding. Who knows what others he has. Reply Matt January 18, 2011 at 4:00 pm Aww, I think I learn as much from the arguments with Silas as from the articles themselves…. Reply matskralc January 19, 2011 at 3:28 pm Yeah, I’d say two things have formed the largest parts of my current thinking on IP: 1) Kinsella’s book, articles, blog posts, etc. 2) Peter Surda’s responses to Silas. Reply Andras January 19, 2011 at 1:30 am Sad! Reply AskanIPquestion January 19, 2011 at 8:00 am hmm as an objectivist he has to obey the wish of mises.org. Remember: IP dictates everything. But I agree with others here: If someone that eager to spread the objectivist word is “banned” he will try and find a way to get back. Therefore it would be better imho to let him back here under his “real” name. Reply Dick Fox January 19, 2011 at 8:59 am It is amusing when I debate this issue, economists who deal with scarce resources are always concerned with increasing the supply to increase production and reduce production costs. Yet, when they deal with IP, non-scarce resources, they are constantly attempting to reduce the supply and by doing so reduce the production based on the supply and increase the cost. Seems kind of “non-economic” to me. It simply makes no sense to me. It is like stimulating the economy by rationing air. Reply Edgaras January 20, 2011 at 1:59 pm hehe spot on. Reply George "Mr. Patent Assistance" Montana September 9, 2011 at 11:46 am Personally, I like to take ideas and improve upon them. I was once told that if you can take a million dollar idea and make it 10% better, you can make additional millions. and here: Intellectual Freedom and Learning versus Patent and Copyright December 15, 2010 by Stephan Kinsella SHARE IT: Email This As noted in my post Kinsella Speech at Students for Liberty – Texas Conference (Austin), on “Intellectual Freedom vs Patent and Copyright”, last month I delivered the speech “Intellectual Freedom and Learning versus Patent and Copyright,” for the 2010 Students For Liberty Texas Regional Conference, University of Texas, Austin. As noted on the website of the Foundation for a Free Society, the video of my talk is now available, as is the audio. { 8 comments } Seattle December 15, 2010 at 1:36 am Wow, you look a LOT better with your glasses on. DixieFlatline December 15, 2010 at 1:52 am Stephan is looking pretty handsome in these videos! Stephan Kinsella December 15, 2010 at 9:12 am Ha! Thanks. I did lose 25 lbs on a crash diet recently. benjamin December 15, 2010 at 9:53 am sadly… I can not hear the audio track. It is so low that I have my volume up all the way and can barely make out anything he is saying. is this fixable??? Stephan Kinsella December 15, 2010 at 10:22 am Hmm, I can hear it fine–it’s a bit low, but listenable. In any case, I have no way to do anything about it. Nielsio December 15, 2010 at 6:33 pm The audio is only on the left channel. Looks like for some reason you only have your right channel up. Edgaras December 15, 2010 at 2:52 pm great lecture  Peter Surda December 28, 2010 at 11:50 am I second that.

In a comment to his post on Sarah Palin, Sheldon Richman writes: I don't see that it's obvious that the Supreme Court has been dishonest about the Constitution. It was written as a deliberately vague document designed to satisfy multiple interests. It's very much an inkblot. Madison said it contained "few and defined" powers, yet he also endorsed the doctrine of implied powers. Let's get real. The Constitution was the result of a virtual coup intended to overthrow the Articles of Confederation. The feeling among the movers in Philadelphia was that there was too little central government, not too much; too little protectionism, not too much. I don't understand the constitutional sentimentalism among some libertarians. As Spooner said, the Constitution either authorized the government we have or was powerless to prevent it. Constitutions don't interpret or enforce themselves. People do, thus the rule of law is always the rule of men. Protection of freedom will not come from constitutions or "limited" Leviathans but from competition. This is a really good point. For other good material on this point, see: Sheldon Richman, The Articles of Confederation Versus the Constitution John Hasnas, The Myth of the Rule of Law Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, The Constitution as Counter-Revolution (mp3; pdf) Kinsella, Rockwell on Hoppe on the Constitution as Expansion of Government Power Lew Rockwell, The Hoppe Effect Rockwell, The Enemy Is Always the State Kinsella, Black Armbands for “Constitution Day” Kinsella, The Bad Bill of Rights, Goodbye 1776, 1789, Tom, Richman on the 4th of July and American Independence, The Murdering, Thieving, Enslaving, Unlibertarian Continental Army, Napolitano on Health-Care Reform and the Constitution: Is the Commerce Clause Really Limited?; Was the American Revolution Really about Taxes?; Re: Happy Bill of Rights Day — The Problem with the Fourteenth Amendment; Bill Marina (R.I.P.) on American Imperialism from the Beginning; Happy We-Should-Restore-The-Monarchy-And-Rejoin-Britain Day!; Revising the American Revolution; The Murdering, Thieving, Enslaving, Unlibertarian Continental Army; The Declaration and Conscription; ‘Untold Truths About the American Revolution’.

See this post.

I appeared yesterday on Ernest Hancock's Declare Your Independence radio show for about two hours (hours 2 and 3 of his show) discussing intellectual property. It was a pretty wide-ranging, radical discussion, but I think I made progress with Ernie. The MP3 files are on the show's page for that day; local files: hour 1; hour 2; hour 3.

That I did not cross-post here: Stefan Molyneux’s “Libertarian Parenting” Series Stefan Molyneux, of Freedomain Radio, has recently had a very interesting series of interviews on “libertarian parenting”. The three guests (so far?) were me, my fellow TLS blogger Gil Guillory, and just today, David Friedman. The MP3s for the first two, and the YouTube videos for all three, are below. All three had different perspectives but were all very practical and had tons of great tips and ideas. Gil Guillory’s mentioned several books and other resources he’s found useful in the instruction of his children. There was a critique of my discussion by one “Aaron,” an “unschooling” advocate, which was debated further on the FDR boards, and discussed subsequently by Molyneux on the FDR1698 Sunday Call In Show July 18 2010. FDR1689 Libertarian Parenting – A Freedomain Radio Conversation with Stephan Kinsella – Two libertarian parents discuss how to best raise confident and freethinking children, including discipline without aggression, Montessori education, resolving conflicts and teaching skepticism and rationality. FDR1693 Libertarian Parenting — A Conversation with Gil Guillory The Best Introduction to Libertarianism Ever I am not exaggerating: this is what Jacob Huebert’s just-published bookLibertarianism Today is. I’ve been a libertarian for over 25 years, and have read a lot of libertarian books. I am sure I was one of Laissez Faire Books‘s biggest customers in its heyday in the 80s and 90s. Among introductions to libertarianism I’ve read are Murray Rothbard’s For A New Liberty (1st ed. 1973), David Bergland’s Libertarianism in One Lesson (1st ed. 1984), David Boaz’sLibertarianism: A Primer (1997), Charles Murray’s What It Means To Be A Libertarian (1997), Jeffrey Miron’s recentLibertarianism from A to Z (2010), and probably others I’ve forgotten. Now, among these, Rothbard’s FANL is a classic and stands out, of course. ButFANL is more of Rothbard’s own particular vision of libertarianism rather than a more comprehensive presentation of the views of the libertarian movement. And of course it is a bit dated by now, does not cover in detail topics that have risen to the fore in the intervening years (such as intellectual property, the Tea Party movement, nullification, etc.). Given the rise of the Tea Party and the expansion of the libertarian movement in the last couple decades–and the inadequacies of other introductory books (each of them, other than FANL, has various deficiencies, although some of them are excellent and most of them worth reading too)–it was high time for a good, up to date new treatment. Huebert has done just this. I read the book in manuscript form well before its publication; I readily disclose I’m friends with Huebert (he’s also a co-blogger here at TLS). I read it with growing excitement. Here, finally, was a book that covered all the major issues, and from a solidly Austrian and anarchist-informed base–one that did not reveal (or feign) ignorance of various libertarian perspectives on issues such as democracy and decentralization and drawbacks of use of electoral politics or court battles. I’ve long maintained that an appreciation of Austrian economics is essential to sound libertarian theorizing; without it, there is always something missing; with it, a more integrated and coherent libertarian perspective is possible (and frankly I don’t see how one can be an Austrian andnot a libertarian, unless one is a misanthrope). Huebert’s book exemplifies this strength in spades. He is thoroughly familiar with Austrian economics and intertwines it throughout his analysis. Let me also say, as somewhat of a specialist on IP related matters, that Huebert’s chapter on this topic is probably the single-best concise overview and explanation of the proper Austrian-libertarian case against IP, and the related libertarian debates about this matter, that I’ve ever read. The book is great for the intelligent person looking to learn more, but has enough insights to interest even seasoned libertarian intellectuals. This is one of the first books I can imagine giving to intelligent, almost-libertarian friends, who have some interest in our ideas (others include Hazlitt’sEconomics in One Lesson, Rothbard & Rockwell’s The Free Market Reader, Bastiat’s The Law, Woods’s Nullification and Meltdown; for more ideas, andlinks to some of these, see my The Greatest Libertarian Books). The book is punchy and well written, not boring; but it doesn’t talk down to the reader either. It’s got exactly the right tone, and covers all the major, modern libertarian issues–and fairly and objectively, to boot. It’s going to be very useful and popular among seasoned libertarians; the growing young generation of emerging libertarians; and with potentially interested people among the civil libertarian left and among the anti-bailout right/Tea Party types. I highly, highly recommend this wonderful book. (See also Block’s excellent book review here.) Google Calls France A Monopoly! Well, they should, anyway–after all, “France Calls Google a Monopoly,” which is absurd. The only real monopoly is the state and monopolies it grants, not private companies that have no extra-market power. Imagine a state adopting the motto, “Don’t Be Evil.” You could use it to strike down most of its laws! Dodge Challenger Freedom Commercial by STEPHAN KINSELLA JULY 7, 2010 This stupid Dodge commercial–which shows a Dodge Challenger arriving bearing American flags to save the day against the British Redcoats in 1776, ending with the narrator saying “America got two things right: Cars and freedom” is a sad statement about America. We have given up our freedoms and cling to mere words and slogans. We [...] Read the full article ? What Kagan Should Have Said About Natural Rights As noted in this Reason article, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was questioned by a Senator about whether she believes in natural rights that are not provided in the Constitution. She repeatedly refused to grant this, instead insisting: “I don’t have a view of what are natural rights, independent of the Constitution. And my job [...] The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center is Here to Help Elizabeth Higgs passed this image on to me–she was alerted to this by a European friend who used a site called TV Shack to watch American TV and found the image above. The center seal, from the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, is creepy and  fascist-looking. And no wonder–the NIPRCC is a program of [...] TLS Podcast Picks: Stefan Molyneux on Language and the State and the Motorhome Diaries Recommended podcasts: FDR #1688: Stefan Molyneux’s opening speech at Porcupine Freedom Festival (PorcFest) on “Language as the Ultimate Government Program” (June 26 2010; video below). It’s a fascinating, audience-participation talk about how the state uses euphemistic language to disguise and cover up the evil that it does–and how we can fight it. Also interesting–listen to [...] Seinfeld’s Elaine is Anti-IP   Hoppe in Bulgarian The Creator-Endorsed Mark as an Alternative to Copyright I’m often asked by people who are interested in the criticisms of intellectual property how authors, for example, would be compensated in a copyright-free society. My answer is sometimes: “I’m not sure. They’d have to figure it out.” I say this not because I have no opinions but because I’m not a consequentialist and do not want to acknowledge that the criticism of IP law is contingent on some kind of view of what would happen in its absence. In this, I’m reminded of John Hasnas’s comments in his brilliant, classic article The Myth of the Rule of Law: What would a free market in legal services be like? I am always tempted to give the honest and accurate response to this challenge, which is that to ask the question is to miss the point. … It is possible to describe what a free market in shoes would be like because we have one. But such a description is merely an observation of the current state of a functioning market, not a projection of how human beings would organize themselves to supply a currently non-marketed good. To demand that an advocate of free market law (or Socrates of Monosizea, for that matter) describe in advance how markets would supply legal services (or shoes) is to issue an impossible challenge. With the advent of state IP legislation, the state has interrupted and preempted whatever other customs, business arrangements, contractual regimes and practices, and so on, that would no doubt have arisen in its absence. So it’s natural for those new to the anti-IP idea to be a bit nervous about replacing the current flawed IP system with … a vacuum. It’s natural for them to wonder, well what would occur in its absence? As I noted, the reason we are not sure is the state has snuffed them out. This is similar to the FCC which preempted and monopolized the field of property rights in airwaves just as they were starting to develop in the common law; now people are used to the idea of the state regulating and parceling out airwave or spectrum rights and might imagine there would be chaos if the FCC were abolished (for more on this see David Kelley & Roger Donway‘s 1985 monograph Laissez Parler: Freedom in the Electronic Media, as discussed in my post Why Airwaves (Electromagnetic Spectra) Are (Arguably) Property). So, because people are bound to ask the inevitable: we IP opponents try to come up with some predictions and solutions and answers. Thus, in the end we must agree with Hasnas: Although I am tempted to give this response, I never do. This is because, although true, it never persuades. Instead, it is usually interpreted as an appeal for blind faith in the free market, and the failure to provide a specific explanation as to how such a market would provide legal services is interpreted as proof that it cannot....

I will collect here links to various articles or discussions about how authors, etc. can make money without relying on the copyright monopoly model. Please feel free to email suggestions or add them to the comments; I'll update this post from time to time. “Innovations that Thrive without IP,” StephanKinsella.com (Aug. 9, 2010) FDA and Patent Reform: A Modest Proposal Francis Ford Coppola, copyfighter Without Intellectual Property (MisesWiki) ("How would the world look like without Intellectual Property? What are the current success stories and possible alternatives if some or all forms of IP were repealed (or became unenforceable)?") Conversation with an author about copyright and publishing in a free society Kinsella on Protecting Value and Harry Potter (Youtube) and Kinsella on Music Industry Business Model (Youtube) Writers Can Prosper Without Intellectual Property, by Gennady Stolyarov II Fantasy author [Brandon Sanderson] raises $19 million on Kickstarter in two days to self-publish new novels (March 3, 2022) Techdirt: Author Using Kickstarter To Offer His Book To The Public Domain, And Help Other Creators To Do The Same; Unglue.it Sets Books Free After Authors Get Paid; see also Masnick, Amazon Stops Processing Payments For Crowdfunding Platform For Creative Commons Books Murakami Releases His Own eBook Without His Publisher Techdirt, Reinventing Book Publishing: Building Real Communities, And Only Holding Rights For Three Years Unbound: connecting authors to readers to publish books with no middleman Mike Masnick, "The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There) Culture," Techdirt (Jan. 25, 2010) see also Michael A. Carrier, “Copyright and Innovation: Responses To Marks, Masnick, and Picker,” Wis. L. Rev. Online (2013) Reminder: Big Concerts Are Not All Of The Live Music Business Patreon: The Crowdfunding Upstart That’s Turning Freelancers Into Superstars, Wired see also Mike Masnick, Cool New Platform For Supporting Artists: Patreon, From Jack Conte Christopher Sprigman on creativity without copyright The Creator-Endorsed Mark as an Alternative to Copyright Innovation in the gaming business model: Humble Indie Bundle (computer games, music, and software examples) How Photographers Can Make Money without Copyright, by Lorin Partain Tom Palmer, Technological Alternatives to Patents and Copyrights The Creator-Endorsed Mark as an Alternative to Copyright Funding for Creation and Innovation in an IP-Free World Would the Absence of Copyright Laws Significantly Affect the Quality and Quantity of Literary Output?, Julio H. Cole Power to the Pixel 2009: Nina Paley (Youtube: A FREE DISTRIBUTION CASE STUDY: SITA SINGS THE BLUES: If its free, how do you make money? Seven months after the Copyleft release of her animated musical feature Sita Sings the Blues, Nina Paley presents the second round of hard data from the project. The more the audience freely shares the film, the more they purchase DVDs, theatre admissions and merchandise. See the ££ numbers that prove it.) See also Paley's interview on FreeTalk Live on 7/28/10 (last 20 minutes or so); Understanding Free Content; and What's Stopping You? (Competition as free market research) Johanna Blakley: Lessons from fashion's free culture (TED Talk) Flattr, "a social micropayment platform that lets you show love for the things you like." Mike Masnick, TechDirt, on "pay what you want" systems: Pay What You Want Works Much Better With A Charity Component "An Alternative Information Economy" section of Are "Intellectual Property Rights" Justified? (2000), by Markus Krummenacker Boldrin and Levine Against Intellectual Monopoly https://youtu.be/mnnYCJNhw7w   https://youtu.be/jIM6dN3ogbk

I recently attended at the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society in Bodrum, Turkey (see my Bodrum Days and Nights: The Fifth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society: A Partial Report). I delivered a speech entitled "Ideas are Free: The Case Against Intellectual Property." The speech following mine was by one Terence Kealey, a biochemist at the University of Buckingham and author of Sex, Science and Profits and The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. Kealey is a fantastic speaker and his fascinating, riveting talk, “Science is a Private Good – Or: Why Government Science is Wasteful” (video; audio), perfectly complemented my anti-IP talk–in fact his book Sex, Science and Profits has a chapter calling for the abolition of patents. (The other PFS speeches (see the Program) are being uploaded and will be linked here.) [Mises]

UPDATE: SEE KOL 054 | “Ideas are Free: The Case Against Intellectual Property: or, How Libertarians Went Wrong” (2010, Property and Freedom Society)   Earlier this month, I spoke at the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society in Bodrum, Turkey (see my Bodrum Days and Nights: The Fifth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society: A Partial Report). My topic was "Ideas are Free: The Case Against Intellectual Property," though a better title might be something like "Ideas Are Not Property:  The Libertarian IP Mistake and the Structure of Human Action." It is now available in audio and video. (I also participated in a Q&A Discussion Panel featuring "Hoppe, van Dun, DiLorenzo, Kinsella, Daniels, Kealey"- video.) The other speeches (see the Program) are being uploaded and will be linked here. Update: Transcript of the speech. PFS 2010 - Stephan Kinsella, Ideas are Free: The Case Against Intellectual Property Rights from Sean Gabb on Vimeo. [Mises; AM]

I was a guest on the Gene Basler show tonight (formerly called anarcho-environmentalism) discussing a variety of anarcho-libertarian matters--environmentalism, nuclear power, state propaganda in government schools, class action lawsuits, reparations, how to achieve an anarcho-libertarian society, animal rights, positive rights and obligations, forced heirship, and so on (local MP3 file). Listen to internet radio with Gene Basler on Blog Talk Radio

China is widely viewed as a "threat" to the US because of its perceived rapid and unstoppable economic growth. This is, in my view, doubly confused. First: if the premise were true, this would be good, not bad. Second: I don't think China is in such great shape. Unfortunately. Some free market economists think otherwise. Peter Schiff "predicts that China will overtake the U.S in terms of Gross Domestic Product before 2020." Jim Rogers thinks "China will likely constitute tomorrow's most powerful nation-state." I've been working for years now for a company with factories and extensive dealings in Taiwan and China. It's been my opinion for some time that China is a primitive basket case. Land is leased, not owned. The communist party corruption is everywhere. The Asian mentality is far different than the western one; they are less innovative, more subservient and servile, more order-following, more collectivist and less individualistic. Poverty and peasantry are rampant. Asians are far more racist and superstitious than Americans (everyone is more racist than Americans in my experience). You have to get permission for everything. There are currency controls. Contracts are not respected--they are signed because they are viewed as red tape and then they start being renegotiated the next day. And on and on. In my view, America is, for all our faults, still, by far, the strongest and best large economy in the world. Who can match the US? Canada is too small. Japan is not quite our size and has its own problems. Europe is like an older, more kleptocratic version of the US--and is probably second best in the world. South America is a basket case of banana republics. Africa is even worse. Russia and Central Europe?--mired in pessimism and corruption and the tendrils of the wreckage of communism. Of the rest, I think India has a better chance than China, for two reasons: they speak English, and they inherited the English property rights system--unlike in China where you still have to lease land from the state for 50 years instead of buying it. And I think India is a basket case too, unlikely to improve much for many decades. So the US is and will remain preeminent, in my view--despite all our problems. (See also Jonathan Bean's America’s Hidden Strength: Babies, Immigration.) Unfortunately, this will allow our parasitical state to maintain its warfare-welfare state (see my post Hoppe on Liberal Economies and War). An American friend of mine living in China sent me some of his thoughts, which I provide, with editing, and anonymously, below: China is [screwed], I tell you. This place is one big pile of poo. Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff are wrong, at least about China. Jim Chanos is right! [See also Jim Rogers: China not in a bubble, Chanos couldn't spell China; China May ‘Crash’ in Next 9 to 12 Months, Faber Says. Also note: Mark DeWeaver, who has written for the Mises Institute before, recently gave a speech about Chinese monetary policy. There's some interesting meat in both the audio and corresponding slides.] There is sooo much unbelievable corruption here. There is very little tolerance for criticism of government policies. They are afraid of Twitter! Yep, the PRC is afraid of 140 character messages. Twitter-Facebook-Youtube: all blocked. The people are ignorant peasants, and their health is terrible too: every guy I know smokes--dude, there are 300+ million smokers in this country. Light it up on the bus. Light it up in the elevator. Light it up in the hospital. I kid you not, I went in for cold medicine and my doctor lit up a cigarette and asked me "what is your problem?" Students regularly smoke during break time and come back in smothered in the world’s sh*ttiest cologne. But hey, I probably wouldn’t worry either if I saw the impending demographic time bomb. And you think that is annoying? Did you know that during the height of stimulus follies last year, the brilliant officials in Hubei province actually mandated a quota of cigarettes public workers were supposed to consume? You might take the Chinese man off the farm but you don’t take the farm out of the Chinese man. The health system is in disarray. I was very sick last summer and visited 6 hospitals in a couple cities. These were all large centers (both public and quasi-private) and in several of these floor after floor had family members camping out on the ground. Sanitation in the bathrooms is horribad... you can smell them all the way down the hall after coming out of the elevator. And when you visit a doctor all the other customers stand next to you and listen in and look at whatever is going on. Privacy was simply not something you had in many cases. I was actually very bullish on China a year or so ago and now I feel like an idiot after having lived outside of the big metropolises. I read a really good interview the other day--some American bigwig was interviewed on cctv. He mentioned just how polluted the waterways here are. Sure, this is just one small thing--but I know that in the city where I live, the river is completely untouchable. It is so unbelievably polluted with heavy metals, that the only thing that its used for is transportation of low-tech barges moving coal up and down between cities. As for corruption--well, at every college, you have a two-part administration. One half of it does the typical bureaucratic stuff, and it is simply filled with Communist Party staff members. A friend who teaches told me that when he goes to a faculty dinner, he is always sitting next to the local Communist Party heads. It is bizarre--just completely dead weight. It gives you an idea of just how interconnected it is here. Imagine--Michael Moore would blow a gasket if the GOP had offices on campuses throughout the country, where curriculum had to go through them first! Here's the CP is just one big vetting machine. Teachers are extremely and notoriously corrupt--for example, bribery is rampant, the teachers will just sell students test answers. This is very commonplace. These poor people are in a really bad place, and the current policies are not going to lead them to what Schiff and Rogers have in mind. No land of milk and honey for sure. One silver lining, I suppose--they can only block ideas for so long, and wireless tech really can be a disruptive force at some point. We'll have to wait and see. And hope. *** Some other thoughts: so I've had a live-in girlfriend for more than a year. She's not from the countryside but is from a modern-middle class family in the south (Guangdon). And she has a brother. Everyone showers him with love, attention, money and pretty much sh*ts on her in comparison. And she's hardly an exception to this very mainstream chauvinistic thinking that permeates much of the rural peasantry. The stories you hear of men having 3, 4, 5+ kids until they have a boy is not uncommon nor are the horrible stories of girls being thrown into public waste bins or drowned in streams by angry mother-in-laws (because they want to have grandsons as well!). So it's not only racist, but sexist. The racism is terrible too--I have a Ghanian friend, a teacher--the Chinese people call him "demon" and "devil." Along with my girlfriend, I've traveled to several large cities with my friend from Ghana. And during the train rides, bus rides, taxi queues and restaurant visits, many residents of these modern cities will murmur and not-so-murmur slurs like "demon" and "devil." They're fine and dandy with white people (cause they all want porcelain white skin) but the slightest shade of brown is considered lower-class ... because your parents worked outside on the farms! What Hong Kong movies also fail to illustrate (much like their Hollywood counterparts) is that in addition to superstitions and racism, nepotism is a huge problem here. Unfortunately most westerners have drunk the Crouching Tiger Kool-Aid when it comes to the very primitive nature and mindset large portions of the population still has (remember more than 50% of the population still lives in the countryside at or near subsistence), believing that everyone here is some kind of egalitarian calligraphy master sitting on top of mountains. Modern engineering requires modern management and accounting practices to operate, and during the industrialization and globalization process, countries, cultures and domestic firms have to implement meritocracy-related promotions and compensation in order to remain competitive and solvent. Yet, meritocracy is not part of the current corporate culture here. It is all about family connections if you want to do anything because there is a ceiling you simply cannot overcome no matter how smart or hard working you are. Throughout the semesters I hear demotivating stories from former students who have done internships at companies and the nepotism that permeates State-owned enterprises. Contracts are easily broken if you are connected to the judicial system, a judicial system that is not independent or transparent. I could go on and on but check out Andy Xie if you want the real beat on Chinese Finance. And don't even get me started about trash and road side pollution or gambling! *** I’m not jaded. In fact I have a pretty comfortable life. But I do live here, outside the big cities, which is something people like Jim Rogers or Peter Schiff don't do. Singapore is to China like Beverly Hills is to Compton. And the mean, gangster-filled streets of Greenwich Connecticut are pretty divorced from the drearily decrepit dusty roads in the middle of middle-of-nowhere central China. Earth to Rogers, there is a reason why there aren’t huge lines in San Francisco to get the next flight back to Zhong Guo, because anyone with half a brain makes their way to the West and not the other way around....

I was on The Peter Mac Show on May 12, 2010, with my fellow Libertarian Standard co-blogger Rob Wicks. We discussed a variety of matters, including whether libertarians should use the word "capitalism," also anarchy, IP and other topics. The MP3 file is here.

I was a guest on the May 9, 2010 episode of BlogTalkRadio’s show Anarchy Time, hosted by James Cox. Other guests included C4SS Development Specialist Mariana Evica, Wilt Alston, and Stefan Molyneux. (Local MP3.)

Fellow guest Becky Akers and I discussed anarchy, the role of education in fighting statism, and related matters, with host Don Cooper on his Qaoss Talk Radio show, April 10, 2010. The show is archived here (local MP3).

From Stefan Molyneux's post on the Mises forum: The Freedomain Radio Book Club had a great discussion with Stephan about intellectual property which I thought you might enjoy... FDR1616 Stephan Kinsella on Intellectual Property from Freedomain Radio Play Now We did this yesterday, Mar. 20, 2010. It was about an hour and was a nice, intelligent discussion of IP and related libertarian issues. (Local MP3 file -- 59MB) [Mises; AM] Update: This originally appeared on The Voluntary Life, Author Interview: Stephan Kinsella on Against Intellectual Property (March 20, 2010; see also their interesting episode Against Intellectual Property: A Follow Up Discussion). The Voluntary Life version has an added introduction by the host.

TCLP 2010-02-24 Interview: Nina Paley This is a feature cast, an episode of The Command Line Podcast. [mp3 ; flac] No listener feedback this week. Due to the length of the interview, there is also no new hacker word of the week this week. The feature this week is an interview with cartoonist and animator, Nina Paley, creator of “Sita Sings the Blues“. I’ve spoken and written about Nina’s story before, the troubles clearing her use of Annette Hanshaw’s torch songs that led her to work with Karl Fogel at QuestionCopyright.org. In the course of the interview, we also mention the store for “Sita” merchandise , the creator endorsed mark, “Minute Memes“, the “Sita” soundtrack by Todd Michaelsen, “Sita” on a persistence of vision wheel based display, and Bill Cheswick’s poster made from every frame of “Sita”. Sadly, by the time you hear this, you’ll have missed her talk at AU but I discuss it a bit in the intro to this episode. Interview: Nina Paley [48:18m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download // Grab the detailed show notes with time offsets and additional links either as PDF or OPML. You can also grab the flac encoded audio from the Internet Archive. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. [AM]

see KOL 035 | Antiwar Interview: Federalism, Bill of Rights, Constitutional Sentimentalism, IP (2010)

Jeff Tucker was interviewed yesterday by Mark Edge, as part of his “Edgington Post Interview Series,” for his Free Talk Live radio show, about the Mises Institute's "open information" approach (see Jeff Tucker, A Theory of Open, B.K. Marcus, Mises.org on iTunes U, Doug French, The Intellectual Revolution Is in Process). The interview is lasts about 24 minutes, and starts at 2:52:07 in the Feb. 8, 2010 show. Tucker makes some great points, such as his idea that perhaps the antitrust law prevented movie studios from owning the theaters and thus may have made them less likely to be willing to consider online distribution models; and his example of how the Cantor-Cox book, which was released for free online months before the paper version, helped to create a ready-made audience for the paper book. [Mises; AM]

I was interviewed yesterday by Mark Edge, as part of his "Edgington Post Interview Series," for his Free Talk Live radio show, about my Mises Daily article, "Reducing the Cost of IP Law." The interview is lasts about 35 minutes, and starts at 2:02:36 in the Jan. 20, 2010 show (MP3). Edge conducted an excellent interview--very informed and interesting. And, like many others, he's come around to the anti-IP position. [Mises; AM]

Great comment about Thomas Paine by Bill Stepp on this thread: Paine forfeited his copyright in "Common Sense" so that any printer could publish it (this was prompted by a dispute with his printer, if memory serves), but he later defended copyright. For what it's worth, he also defended the evil Pennsylvania Test Oaths, and expounded a variant of socialism in land in "Agrarian Justice." A few more libertarians like Paine, and we'll be laboring in slave camps. I could never figure out why libertarians are so quick to embrace Paine (ditto for Andrew Jackson, who didn't put an end to the 2BUS for any high-minded libertarian reasons, but so that its deposits would go into the pet banks owned by his political backers and cronies). Stepp was right. Paine argued in a 1782 pamphlet that “the works of an author are his legal property,” and that it was critical for the country “to prevent depredation on literary property.” See The Life and Writings of Thomas Paine: Containing a Biography (Daniel Edwin Wheeler, ed., 1908) vol. 8, pp. 180, 182, quoted in Paul Clement, Viet Dinh & Jeffrey Harris, "The Constitutional and Historical Foundations of Copyright Protection," Center for Individual Freedom [sic] (2012). Paine here refers to the unauthorized copying and publishing as piracy, fraud, embezzlement, purloinment, and so on. See also Paine Was A Socialist. But see Jeff Tucker's comments to X-Treme Thomas Paine, where he writes: I’m not a Paine scholar but it seems obvious that the application of his principles ebb and flowed a bit here and there. He wrote in favor of the inheritance tax after he exiled from England and before his arrest in France. I do know this: he is one of the greatest champions of liberty ever. No one of his generation wrote as powerfully on the relationship between the individual and the state; and I also know that it is extremely difficult to find any thinker in any country who pure by modern standards who wrote before the age of Rothbard. So give the guy a break and learn what you can from him. Update: See Paine's complete writings, here; and also the fascinating series of V76 lectures by Andrew Galambos, which focused on the significance of Paine's thought and his crucial role in the American Revolution (and Galambos's contention that Paine was the actual author of the Declaration of Independence, not merely its intellectual inspiration). See Galambos on Paine (July 4, 2022).

SEE NOW: [KOL027] I was invited to be a guest on The Peter Mac Show last night and ended up staying on for both hours. It was a pretty in-depth interview. The host asked impressively intelligent questions for someone who had just started coming around to the anti-IP position (after reading my Intellectual Property and Libertarianism just the day before (!)). The MP3 files are here: hour 1; hour 2 (on Peter's site, hour 1, hour 2). [Local files: hour 1; hour 2]

Manuel, Lew, David -- Yes, we should not be surprised at this. Hans Hoppe once noted that f you want to win the Nobel peace prize, it helps if you are a mass murderer; if you want to win the economics Nobel prize, it is always of advantage if you have contributed to ruining various countries' economies or you have written completely irrelevant mathematical treatises that are of no concern to anyone whatsoever (he also notes that the economics prize is donated by the Swedish central bank and the committee members are life-long appointees and except for two years social democrats have run the show so that it is roughly predictable who can possibly win the prize; thus, James Buchanan has advocated a 100% inheritance tax and is hailed as a free marketeer, so he can win; Milton Friedman, a free marketeer who fought for paper money all his life, endorsed the negative income tax (guaranteed income), educational vouchers (like food stamps for education), can of course win. I.e., socialists can win and be presented to the public as free marketeers. See Hoppe's Mises University 2001 lecture "Mises and the Foundation of Austrian Economics", at about 1:10:20 to 1:12:. See also Hoppe's ruminations on the Nobel in economics here.) I can't say I relish confronting even more smug, preening Obamaites, though. One solution would be to just award Obama the Nobel prize in economics too--that would help smash the credibility of both prizes. Update: See Roderick Long's post from 2003: A lot of people were outraged when Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 – a choice which people are still protesting. I’m no fan of Arafat, but look at the list of folks he shares that dubious honour with. There are certainly some good people on that list (including, I believe, the only libertarian: French economist Frédéric Passy, recipient of the very first prize in 1901, and perhaps the only person ever to accuse Gustave de Molinari of not being sufficiently libertarian!), but it also includes such pestilent warmongers as: Theodore Roosevelt – 1906 Woodrow Wilson – 1919 Henry Kissinger – 1973 Mikhail Gorbachev – 1990As far as I’m concerned, the Nobel Peace Prize became meaningless as of 1906. Arafat is welcome to it. [LRC]

As noted on LewRockwell.com, there's a wonderful Rap video by a young libertarian rapper, Neema V (from Houston, so he's my homie). See the video below, and a great short interview by him on FreeTalkLive, in which Neema V goes on about the influence Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, and Butler Shaffer had on him (Shaffer's book Boundaries of Order is featured in the video). This young man is intelligent, thoughtful, pleasant, interesting, and talented (amazing video and song for a home-made solo production). Go Neema V! FYNV!! From FreeTalkLive: 09/20/09 FTL Interviews Rapper Neema V We interview anarchocapitalist rapper Neema V about the liberty message and the rap community. Here's the archive.

It's a tragedy Rothbard died in 1995, before he could finish his History of Economic Thought series. At the time of his death, he had only published volumes I and II (epub and PDF files available here). However, as noted in the Mises store entry for Vol. III, The History of Economic Thought: From Marx to Hayek, although he "died before he could write his third volume of his famous History of Economic Thought that would cover the birth and development of the Austrian School, through the Keynesian Revolution and Chicago School," "he had already mapped out the entire project." And, it turns out: it's on tape! "Fortunately, the Mises Institute had Rothbard lecture on his discoveries and analysis of this period while he was researching the topic. The tapes were only recently discovered. We re-mastered them, and put them on a single MP3-CD: nearly seven hours of lectures." See links in The History of Economic Thought: From Marx to Hayek, with links below; see also these youtube playlists: 1, 2. 1. Ideology and Theories of History 01/13/2006•Murray N. Rothbard Tags:Other Schools of Thought,Philosophy and Methodology,World History History is not an inevitable march upward, as concluded in the 1830s. That determinist view put the stamp of approval on everything past and present. It permeates economic history. It ignores the great moral choices. History is a race between state power and social power. 2. The Emergence of Communism 01/13/2006•Murray N. Rothbard Tags:Other Schools of Thought,World History The roots of Marxism were in messianic communism. Marx’s devotion to communism was his crucial point. Violent, worldwide revolution, in Marx’s version made by the oppressed proletariat, would be the instrument of the advent of his millennium, communism. 3. The Pre-Austrians 01/13/2006•Murray N. Rothbard Tags:Other Schools of Thought,World History Richard Cantillon was quite Misesian before Mises. He wrote of utility theory and the entrepreneur’s uncertainty in the 1970s. Cantillon was a great money practitioner. He became a bank and banker to the Jacobite Stuart line and to John Law who launched paper money inflation. 4. Menger and Böhm-Bawerk 01/13/2006•Murray N. Rothbard Tags:Austrian Economics Overview,Other Schools of Thought,World History Carl Menger, 1840-1921, founded Austrian economics. Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk was the most important student. Weiser was his brother-in-law, but was fairly pre-Keynesian. Mises was the great successor to Bohn-Bawerk. 5. Mises and Austrian Economics 01/13/2006•Murray N. Rothbard Tags:Austrian Economics Overview,History of the Austrian School of Economics,Other Schools of Thought The essence of Austrian economics is based on the analysis of individual action. In other words, it is about individuals doing things, having purposes and goals and pursuing them. Other schools of economics deal with aggregates, groups, classes, wholes of one sort or another, without focusing on the... 6. Hayek and His Lamentable Contemporaries 01/13/2006•Murray N. Rothbard Tags:History of the Austrian School of Economics,Other Schools of Thought The Nobel award to F.A. Hayek in 1974 went directly against the tradition of that prize to go only to mathematical forecasters, left-liberals, and government central planners. Not only was Hayek’s work pioneering, but it is also the only correct analysis of business cycles past, present and future... *** Note:  The links below now also contain transcriptions of the lectures (thanks to a donation from Thomas Topp), which I have stitched together as a single file (PDF). Update: Many of these links are now broken by mises.org. See above links for current media. Hayek and His Lamentable Contemporaries The final lecture in a series of six, taken from the MP3 CD entitled "The History of Economic Thought: From Marx to Hayek" [1:07:46] Murray N. Rothbard Thursday, January 12, 2006 Mises and Austrian Economics The fifth in a series of six lectures, taken from the MP3 CD entitled "The History of Economic Thought: From Marx to Hayek" [56:38] Murray N. Rothbard Thursday, January 12, 2006 Menger and Böhm-Bawerk The fourth in a series of six lectures, taken from the MP3 CD entitled "The History of Economic Thought: From Marx to Hayek" [1:11:37] Murray N. Rothbard Thursday, January 12, 2006 The Pre-Austrians The third in a series of six lectures, taken from the MP3 CD entitled "The History of Economic Thought: From Marx to Hayek" [1:11:55] Murray N. Rothbard Thursday, January 12, 2006 The Emergence of Communism The second in a series of six lectures, taken from the MP3 CD entitled "The History of Economic Thought: From Marx to Hayek" [1:11:47] Murray N. Rothbard Thursday, January 12, 2006 Ideology and Theories of History The first in a series of six lectures, taken from the MP3 CD entitled "The History of Economic Thought: From Marx to Hayek" [1:06:34] Murray N. Rothbard Thursday, January 12, 2006

At Recovery or Stagnation?, a Mises Circle held in San Francisco on August 29, 2009, there was a great Speakers' Panel featuring Walter Block, Thomas DiLorenzo, Douglas French, and Robert Murphy. Great comments on the current financial mess. One thing that especially interested me were Walter Block's comments from about 12:45 to 13:35, where he distinguishes between economic theory and one's ability to predict or forecast. Sure, having a sound understanding of theory can help, but it cannot make your predictions foolproof. For example one's understanding of the business cycle might lead you to recommend buying gold; but then the state might confiscate gold soon after that. https://youtu.be/WkYrYi1KKX4?si=QZ3WYQYlu5u7tW-5&t=736 This brings to mind some discussions I've had about the nature of economics and its role in investing or forecasting. My view is the Misesian-Rothbardian-Hoppean one, which I understand to be that the future is uncertain, but not radically so; that knowledge of economics laws can help, ceteris paribus--but that usually other factors are dominant. The skill of forecasting is called the understanding, or verstehen; but it is not merely "luck," as some in thrall to monism-scientism are wont to deride it. Peter Klein mentioned to me that the question of why or how someone has the better skill at forecasting is really meta-economics—more of a psychological field, which is studied at Effectuation, from a Kirznerian perspective. It could be that one reason Austrian investors don't dominate is that economic understanding only gives you a second order marginal advantage over others, that psychological or other factors are more important. In other words, the better your economic understanding, the better a forecaster you can be. The future, while uncertain, is not radically so, and knowledge of economics helps constrain the possibilities. So ceteris paribus someone with a better understanding of economics would be a better investor. The problem is the ceteris is not usually that paribus; that economic knowledge is only a small factor of investing success, since it depends also on other factors, which apparently usually tend to dominate-other factors such as the possession of capital to invest; your access to certain knowledge or data; and your investing ability or knack, the leftover part that is more art, that Mises called verstehen. Possible, in times of a typical Austrian business cycle bust, sound economics could play a bigger role in one's ability to forecast, which could explain why Austrians like Schiff and others are standing out right now. See also Peter Klein's work on the nature of entrepreneurship, e.g. his Opportunity discovery, entrepreneurial action, and economic organization: Abstract: This article reviews and critiques the opportunity discovery approach to entrepreneurship and argues that entrepreneurship can be more thoroughly grounded, and more closely linked to more general problems of economic organization by adopting the Cantillon-Knight-Mises understanding of entrepreneurship as judgment. The article begins by distinguishing among occupational, structural, and functional approaches to entrepreneurship and distinguishing among two influential interpretations of the entrepreneurial function - discovery and judgment. It turns next to the contemporary literature on opportunity identification and argues that this literature misinterprets Kirzner's instrumental use of the discovery metaphor and mistakenly makes opportunities the unit of analysis. The article then describes an alternative approach in which investment is the unit of analysis and link this approach to Austrian capital theory. I close with some applications to organizational form and entrepreneurial teams. Some more good quotes on this from (what I think of as) the High Austrians: Rothbard, Praxeology as the Method of the Social Sciences: For the praxeologist, forecasting is a task very similar to the work of the historian. The latter attempts to "predict" the events of the past by explaining their antecedent causes; similarly, the forecaster attempts to predict the events of the future on the basis of present and past events already known. He uses all his nomothetic knowledge, economic, political, military, psychological, and technological; but at best his work is an art rather than an exact science. Thus, some forecasters will inevitably be better than others, and the superior forecasters will make the more successful entrepreneurs, speculators, generals, and bettors on elections or football games. The economic forecaster, as Professor Jewkes, an economist at the best crypto exchange UK has to offer pointed out, is only looking at part of a tangled and complex social whole. To return to our original example, when he attempts to forecast the price of butter he must take into consideration the qualitative economic law that price depends directly on demand and inversely on supply; it is then up to him, using knowledge and insight into general economic conditions as well as the specific economic, technological, political, and climatological conditions of the butter market, as well as the values people are likely to place on butter, to try to forecast the movements of the supply and demand of butter, and therefore its price, as accurately as possible. At best, he will have nothing like a perfect score, for he will run aground on the fact of free will altering values and choices , and the consequent impossibility of making exact predictions of the future. Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method: The argument establishing the impossibility of causal predictions in the field of human knowledge and actions now might have left the impression that if this is so, then forecasting can be nothing but successful or unsuccessful guessing. This impression, however, would be just as wrong as it would be wrong to think that one can predict human action in the same way as one can predict the growing stages of apples. It is here where the unique Misesian insight into the interplay of economic theory and history enters the picture. [36] In fact, the reason why the social and economic future cannot be regarded as entirely and absolutely uncertain should not be too hard to understand: The impossibility of causal predictions in the field of action was proven by means of an a priori argument. And this argument incorporated a priori true knowledge about actions as such: that they cannot be conceived of as governed by time-invariantly operating causes. Thus, while economic forecasting will indeed always be a systematically unteachable art, it is at the same time true that all economic forecasts must be thought of as being constrained by the existence of a priori knowledge about actions as such. [37] The quantity theory of money then cannot render any specific economic event, certain or probable, on the basis of a formula employing prediction constants. However, the theory would nonetheless restrict the range of possibly correct predictions. And it would do this not as an empirical theory, but rather as a praxeological theory, acting as a logical constraint on our prediction-making. [38] Predictions that are not in line with such knowledge (in our case: the quantity theory) are systematically flawed and making them leads to systematically increasing numbers of forecasting errors. This does not mean that someone who based his predictions on correct praxeological reasoning would necessarily have to be a better predictor of future economic events than someone who arrived at his predictions through logically flawed deliberations and chains of reasoning. It means that in the long run the praxeologically enlightened forecaster would average better than the unenlightened ones. It is possible to make the wrong prediction in spite of the fact that one has correctly identified the event "increase in the money supply" and in spite of one's praxeologically correct reasoning that such an event is by logical necessity connected with the event "drop in the purchasing power of money." For one might go wrong predicting what will occur to the event "demand for money." One may have predicted a constant demand for money, but the demand might actually increase. Thus the predicted inflation might not show up as expected. And on the other hand, it is equally possible that a person could make a correct forecast, i.e., there will be no drop in purchasing power, in spite of the fact that he was wrongly convinced that a rise in the quantity of money had nothing to do with money's purchasing power. For it may be that another concurrent change occurred (the demand for money increased) which counteracted his wrong assessment of causes and consequences and accidentally happened to make his prediction right. However, and this brings me back to my point that praxeology logically constrains our predictions of economic events: What if we assume that all forecasters, including those with and without sound praxeological knowledge, are on the average equally well-equipped to anticipate other concurrent changes? What if they are on the average equally lucky guessers of the social and economic future? Evidently, we must conclude then that forecasters making predictions in recognition of and in accordance with praxeological laws like the quantity theory of money will be more successful than that group of forecasters which is ignorant of praxeology. It is impossible to build a prediction formula which employs the assumption of time-invariantly operating causes that would enable us to scientifically forecast changes in the demand for money. The demand for money is necessarily dependent on people's future states of knowledge, and future knowledge is unpredictable. And thus praxeological knowledge has very limited predictive utility. [39] Hoppe, On Certainty and Uncertainty, Or: How Rational Can Our Expectations Be?: ...

[Update: see various biographical pieces on my publications page, including Alan D. Bergman, Adopting Liberty: The Stephan Kinsella Story (2025).] Gary North delivered a wonderful lecture last month during Mises University 2009 (the same day I gave my own speech), "Calling and Career as an Austrian School Scholar" (a shorter version of this was in the LRC podcast 127. Gary North: Making a Difference, Making a Living, which is also excellent).  North talks calling and occupation. Calling is "the most important thing you can do with your life in which you are most difficult to replace." Occupation is "how you put food on the table." Occasionally they are the same, but often not; but there is no reason not to arrange your life so as to have both. He talks about how to combine them or at least have both in your life, and centers his talk around some examples, notably Burt Blumert and William Volker. Also see Paul Graham's "What You'll Wish You'd Known ("I wrote this talk for a high school. I never actually gave it, because the school authorities vetoed the plan to invite me.") Update: see also this video by Scott Galloway. A friend said: "I love his takes on "balance" and "follow your passion" being bullshit, which, while I think most people my age know it, few seem to explicitly say it and teach it to young people." https://youtu.be/Brp9DpJsEi4

Here are some of my older AgainstMonopoly.org blogposts, which were not cross-referenced here (but will be going forward): The IP Dogs! The post Animal Abuse mentions the state's use of "DVD-sniffing anti-piracy dogs."Res ipsa loquitur. [Posted at 06/03/2009 08:53 AM by Stephan Kinsella on IP as a Joke comments(0)] Imagining the Fate of Copyright in a Future World There's been much talk lately of the imminent death of copyright, due in part to the increasing digitization of information and media, the Internet, large bandwidth, and encryption. Nora Ephron, for example, recently observed, "We're in the last days of copyright, if you want to be grim about it...." And see The Death of Copyright, Item #241, Encryption, Strong Privacy, and the Death of Copyright, The Death of Copyright, and many other such comments.Imagine a world 150, 200, 500 years from now--when virtually every work of art, every novel, ever movie, song, and recording ever produced until today--and many years after--is public domain. Now imagine you want to play muzak in your elevators, or nice background music in your dental office, or car repair waiting room, or restaurant. Or imagine you want to publish a book (or website) of great paintings. If you want to do these things today, most of the works you'd be intersted in are still covered by copyright. Sure, there are older recordings on scratchy 78 rpm LPs, and musty tomes from the time of the Civil War or earlier--but modern stuff, in color, stereo, hi-fi, with modern acting and special effects--most is still subject to copyright. So to play muzak in your elevator or pipe in nice background music to the ceiling speakers of your waiting room, you have to pay annoying royalties each month. But even now we are starting to see, with the advent of Google Books, The Internet Archive, and Gutenberg, and so on, increasingly modern books entering the public domain. Imagine 400 years from now, and every movie, song, painting, novel published from the dawn of time, every movie made in the 20th and 21st and 22nd centuries, plus hundreds of thousands or even millions of songs, photographs, paintings, ... and the last 100 years or so is still locked up. Now let's say you want to put up a website the 10,000 great paintings; or stream a music or movie station playing great songs and films--will you pay out the nose for the rights to publish the recent stuff? Well, maybe, but if you have an almost unending cornucopia of great, free stuff to choose from--methinks this might exert a strong downward pressure on the ability of copyright holders to extort much money from you. (And this is disregarding practical problems they face, such as some kid downloading all the world's media into his petabyte thumb drive in 17 seconds via a totally secure encrypted link.) [Posted at 05/20/2009 10:05 PM by Stephan Kinsella on Copyright comments(0)] Kevin Carson's Intellectual Property A Libertarian Critique Kevin Carson has just released his Intellectual Property--A Libertarian Critique. I haven't had a chance to read all of it yet, but from a quick skim it looks good, and with a title like this--and given that IP is turning out to be an insidious tool wielded by the state to destroy and re-route wealth--it's worth looking into. [Posted at 05/13/2009 07:01 PM by Stephan Kinsella on Against Monopoly comments(16)] Lawyer Layoffs--A Silver Lining! Thompson & Knight lays off lawyers, staff firmwide notes something we're hearing more and more about nowadays--law firms laying off attorneys, due to Great Depression II. As the piece notes, the Dallas-based firm recently "laid off for economic reasons 17 lawyers and 25 support staff in all of its U.S. offices, including Dallas, Houston, New York, Fort Worth and Austin. ... All of the lawyers are associates -- only two of them are first years -- who practiced in real estate or other business-related areas that require bank money to operate."But not all is lost: "not all of the firm's practices are doing badly by a long shot, [the managing partner] says. 'There are areas of our firm like IP litigation that are going crazy.'" [Posted at 05/13/2009 11:28 AM by Stephan Kinsella on IP Law comments(2)] A State-Granted Property Right in Preventing Teenage Drunk Driving As reported on Patently-O, two "inventors" have files patent applications on two "inventions". The first is for SoberTeen(TM) driving insurance. The application claims a new auto insurance product where a driver receives a 10 to 30 percent discount in premium in exchange for allowing the insurance company to monitor his or her car to determine if anyone drives it while under the influence of alcohol. I wonder what MADD would say about the patentee trying to use the courts to stop an insurance company from offering this product without paying a ransom? The other attempts to claim a monopoly on A method wherein the life or health risk of a person is evaluated based on information maintained in a Risk Profile Data Base (RPDB) and the result of said evaluation is used for one or both of the following purposes: to offer an insurance policy in an underwriting class determined by the said evaluation; to provide said person with a life or health expectancy report containing suggestions on how said person can improve said life or health expectancy. Is any comment really needed? [Posted at 05/11/2009 01:51 PM by Stephan Kinsella on IP as a Joke comments(1)] Those Dreaded "frivolous patent challenges" Will Proposed New Post-Grant Review Procedures Invite Abuse? that "The Innovation [sic] Alliance" is opposed to reforming the patent system to allow "post-grant review mechanisms"--that is, ways for potential victims of patent extortion to challenge the validity of issued patents. The group is worried this might permit "repeated frivolous patent challenges"! Got that--not frivolous patents, but frivolous patent challenges! This is like a plaintiffs' lawyer who files frivolous lawsuits complaining about people defending themselves from it--they ought to just cough up the demanded money and quit finding "frivolous" defenses!Here, people who use the power of the state to unjustly acquire a monopoly that gives them the right to legally extort victims are complaining about "frivolous patent challenges". Wow, some chutzpah. The post also notes: The fear is that such service provides will offer to "creat[e] uncertainty about a problem patent by tying it up in a long reexamination process and effectively nullify the problem patent" to get lower rates during license negotiations "until the uncertainty ends." So.... to avoid reducing the amount of extortion holders of "problem patents" can demand, we should just presume patents are valid--even if they might not be--and don't allow any kind of challenge that could just "cause uncertainty." Wow. I don't know. I prefer justice to certainty. Call me crazy. [Posted at 05/11/2009 01:44 PM by Stephan Kinsella on Patent Lawyers comments(0)] The Other Dr. No: HIV Researcher Fighting the IP Pirates I don't mean the James Bond movie, or Ron Paul, Congress's "Dr. No." This wonderful, eye-opening piece by the heroic IP-abuse reporter Joe Mullin, The Fight of His Life (Mullin's blog, The Prior Art) highlights the appalling ordeal of Dr. Bob Shafer, a bioinformatics expert. Yet another case of patent law victimizing innovation and innocent people.As such stories tend to be, this one is complicated, but it's crucially important, so bear with my attempt at a concise summary. Dr. Shaffer, an associate professor of medicine and pathology at Stanford University, established the HIV Drug Resistance Database (HIVdb) (wikipedia link) in 1998. As the article reports, Since then, the database has built a following among HIV researchers and practitioners around the world, attracting some 50,000 unique visitors a month. Those who use it generally fall into three categories: academic researchers, commercial and noncommercial laboratories, and doctors. ... The database allows users to enter genetic information for viruses from individual patients or groups of patients, and to retrieve drug resistance information, which can then be used to help devise treatment regimens. Such information is critical to HIV research and drug development, as well as to treating individual patients. HIVdb is especially popular in the developing world not least because it's freely available to anyone with an Internet connection. In some developing countries, medical practitioners have heard of Stanford University mainly through their interactions with HIVdb. This is quite obviously a heroic, important, noble and benevolent effort. As the article notes, it's "a highly regarded free resource that he developed, Stanford hosts, and doctors and scientists around the world rely on." However, in January 2007, ABL, a medical software company based in Luxembourg, claimed that the database infringed its patents. Read the article for more details, but in short: Stanford first moved to invalidate ABL's patents by filing a declaratory judgment suit in California in October 2007; but then later settled with ABL, where ABL agreed not to sue Stanford for patent infringement and Stanford agreed to put a prominent disclaimer on the HIVdb, informing those who used it that, depending on the nature of their work, they might need a patent license from ABL. However, Shafer wasn't required to sign the agreement with ABL and was not told him about the settlement's terms until after it was reached. Shafer at first refused to post the notice, and bully for him. He was afraid it would lead doctors to think they owe money to ABL, "and that the database built mostly with taxpayer-funded National Institutes of Health grants is no longer free." Finally, under pressure, he did post a notice but he appended his own language arguing the patents are overbroad and invalid. See about halfway down on this page, where Dr....

Local copy of: Do patents and copyrights undermine private property?: Yes, Insight magazine, May 21, 2001 (reading of and discussion of this piece by hosts at Free Talk Live, 8/31/07 show; audio is here [starts around 5:25]) (Web archive version of the article.) symposium Q: Do patents and copyrights undermine private property? Yes: They are a burden to marketplace transactions and discourage business startups. By Ilana Mercer and N. Stephan Kinsella Property and liberty are intricately linked. In fact property, not representative government or majority rule, exemplifies freedom. Property is a sphere in which the individual can be free of government; the historical role of private property as countervailing to the power of the state cannot be overstated. Equally strong is the relationship between strong private-property rights and prosperity. If nothing else, the dismal economic failure of socialism has demonstrated what transpires when private ownership of the means of production is abolished. The insidious and persistent encroachment on property by the modern welfare state has, however, resulted in a complete confusion about the nature of ownership. By undermining the ethical foundations upon which property rests, the welfare state has made it morally acceptable to give people access to property they don’t own. Property grabs run the gamut from taxation, welfare programs, forfeitures, and environmental and antitrust legislation to the more subtle interference with freedom of contract inherent in minimum-wage laws and affirmative hiring. Copyright and patent grants of privilege are another form of property infringement — courtesy of the state. While they have their origins in a much earlier privilege given to “friends of the crown,” in their modern incarnation they blend in with the welfare state’s wealth-distributing impetus. Far from being “natural” property rights grounded in the common law, patent and copyright are monopoly privileges granted solely by state legislation. Copyright gives authors of original works (e.g., books) the exclusive rights to copy the work or to prepare “derivative works” based on the original. A patent gives an inventor the right to stop others from making, using or selling the patented invention. In both cases, the holder of this right is given legal control over how others use their property. As the author of a differently hued Gone with the Wind recently found out, the copyright holder can stop you from using your own paper and ink to publish a novel that reproduces the copyrighted work or one based on its plot. The estate of Margaret Mitchell, author of Gone with the Wind, is suing Alice Randall to block her from publishing the parody The Wind Done Gone. Randall tells the famous tale from the perspective of black slaves. The mere act of creation — composing a song, penning a novel or inventing a mousetrap — gives the creator control over the tangible property of others. In addition to allowing the author partially to control the paper, ink, computer and photocopies of others, copyright in particular restricts not only our rights to our property, but to our very bodies. Consider the choreographer of a dance who gets the right to stop another from moving his body in a certain fashion. First Amendment rights to freedom of speech also are compromised. A recent court order obtained by factions of the entertainment industry decreed that source code (a computer program) is not protected free speech, and the studios have a right to suppress it. What next? Do we unleash the force of the law against a devotee who recites computer code on a street corner? It gets worse. You don’t have to be guilty of copyright violation to be constrained; doing something that might result in some third party making prohibited copies will suffice. A particularly rank example of prior-restraint legislation is the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. Manufacturers of digital-recording devices are compelled by law to incorporate technology that prevents copying; they are penalized in anticipation of possible infractions. Manufacturers also are made to pony up royalties in lieu of each device of blank media sold. Ditto for consumers who pay through excise taxes. Patents, however, take the cake. The patent holder can prevent others from practicing invention even if, as is quite common, they arrive at the process quite independently. Happen to think of a new way to tune your car engine to get better gas mileage? Better hope someone else does not have a patent on that technique; he could stop you from twiddling with your own 1967 Mustang in your own garage. Thinking of dashing off a quick software-filing program to streamline your business? Think again. “Software-driven, multihost storage solutions for powering advanced business applications,” are being patented at a furious rate. Stripped of baffle gab, this mouthful means that for the privilege of filing, albeit electronically, you will have to pay extortion money to a patent holder. It gets scarier when you consider that 20,000 software patents are issued annually. Price-inflating patent monopolies have grave consequences for undeveloped nations, as the latest patent imbroglio unfurling in South Africa suggests. The government of South Africa enacted legislation to allow parallel importing of, and domestic production of, generic AIDS drugs to help deal with the AIDS crisis. The multinational pharmaceutical kingpins moved in to enforce their patent monopolies, plunging South Africa into a life-and-death battle. South African firms presumably have not stolen their equipment. Neither have they trespassed or broken an entry to obtain the molecular combinations for AZT, 3TC or ddI. These are in the public domain. So why should South Africans be prohibited from making these drugs? Given that it’s generally a bad thing, through legislation, to transfer control of property from owner to nonowner, what possibly is the justification for such laws? Most proponents view intellectual property (IP) as a matter of utility. Without such laws, the argument goes, we would be deprived of clever inventions and beautiful works of art. To utilitarians, the “costs” of monopoly privileges, not least the violation of property rights, are outweighed by their benefits. Utilitarians turn a blind eye to the staggering sums companies spend on the fees of patent attorneys who prepare, file and defend patent applications, mostly for defensive purposes. Litigation costs millions. Mergers between companies often occur for no other reason than to settle patent disputes or to allow the merging parties to compete with a rival with a large patent armory. Submarine patents can emerge at any time, only to sink a high-tech company. The threat of patents increases overall business risk and can torpedo marginal or startup companies. If patents and copyright are essential to innovation, as the mantra goes, how is it that day dawns and the perfume maker who owns no odor-rights still is marketing high-end perfume that can be knocked off? Philosophers persist in writing their tomes, mathematicians toil at solving age-old riddles and physicists don’t tire from probing the universe. How does all this creativity continue without the reward of a monopolistic ownership in the ensuing ideas? And why is it fair for the law to protect practical gizmos but not more abstract ideas such as Einstein’s equation E=mc2? So far, we’ve highlighted how intellectual-property rights interfere with the freedom of others to use their own bodies or their justly acquired property in certain ways. But why should they not be accorded this right? Why should tangible goods be the proper objects of property rights instead of intangibles such as the ideas IP laws protect? Here we arrive at the nub of the issue. “He who receives an idea from me,” wrote Thomas Jefferson, himself an inventor, “receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” Jefferson was very definitely not articulating the fatuous “information-wants-to-be-free” argument made by the left regarding IP. He was, however, enunciating what is the essence of ownable property. Ownable property is only that which is economically scarce. And by economic scarcity we mean that, absent clear demarcation, conflict will arise as to who owns the resource. Land, cars, printing presses, paper and ink are scarce in the sense that if we remove them from you, you no longer have them. Our use of an item conflicts with your use of it. While an abundance of computers can be had on the market, our use of this particular personal computer excludes your use of it. If we could conjure computers with a genie gesture, they would be abundant, not scarce, and it would be immaterial if this one were removed. However valuable, ideas are not economically scarce: Our listening to a piece of music doesn’t conflict with or exclude your doing the same. A copy made of a book doesn’t remove from its author the configuration of ideas that is the book. Ideas, very plainly, can be jointly consumed without dissipating. Of course, the end product of an idea — to wit, a book or a compact disc — is very definitely scarce. True to John Locke, we say that if you purchase the book or buy the CD, you are its rightful sole owner. Proponents of IP, however, say that some distant author or musician partially may colonize your book and CD and tell you how to use them. How do we allay the fear that without patent and copyright we would all perish? Consider this: How many tears would you shed if Bill Gates were worth only several — not dozens of —billions? Since Microsoft owes a good portion of its wealth to the copyright monopoly, this would be the upshot of its removal. If the company relied only on profits from initial sales and from support services, would that be so bad? ...