In yesterday’s podcast episode, KOL457 | Sheldon Richman & IP; Andre from Brazil re Contract Theory, Student Loan Interest Payments, Bankruptcy, Vagueness, Usury, I mentioned Brian Gladish, a (former? quasi?) Galambosian1 whose confused views on IP I have criticized before.2 A couple days ago he sent me a nice note complimenting my article “No Mises Bust at the University of Vienna.” In response I asked him to remind me where he currently stood on the issue of IP—whether he was still for it or what (I talk to a lot of people and could not quite remember).
Right away he got defensive and acted hurt because when we had previously discussed it I was “pretty dismissive,” but that he had emailed me “once suggesting that there might be market protection for IP that you responded wouldn’t be objectionable.” I suggested we discuss his IP views, his views on Galambos, etc., in a informal zoom call for an episode of my podcast, Kinsella on Liberty. I thought some of my audience might find it interesting and I could get some Galambosian, or at least former or semi-Galambosian, on record about all this since they are notoriously difficult to find or pin down. Again he seemed wary and suspicious.
After he saw my episode with Richman, he must have remembered my previous criticisms (including Gladish on Galambos at ASC) and went all dimwit-serioso on me and wrote, in High Dudgeon:
Your actions betray you. I have no ongoing interest in this controversy and will not be appearing opposite you in any venue.
My reply (very informal, much dictated by voice on my iphone):
you can explain yourself
I have no problem having a civil, reasonable discussion w/ you about it
Gladish:
Your actions betray you. I have no ongoing interest in this controversy and will not be appearing opposite you in any venue.
Kinsella:
no skin off my back.
.. but to be clear–it’s not my fault you are confused, or that I am honest in assessing your confusion. It’s Galambos’s, and yours. Not mine. I’ve done all I can do to clarify this area, and then to have the temerity to offer to you a discussion to help clear things up for you. This is the problem wtih you people–too fucking proud. No humility.
Then he posted on his “blogspot” free blog hosting service a paranoid, emotional, serioso post “The Vile Creature Stephan Kinsella” (pasted below for the reader for convenience, and in case he takes it down) criticizing me—and quoting the content of our Facebook message exchange, which, as everyone with any sense and manners and ethics and netiquette knows, is a big no-no. Especially for a hyper-IP Galambosian; they won’t even quote Galambos, which is one reason his retarded ideas have not “spread like wildfire.”3 Since he opened the door I have quoted him back, here, since apparently he does not mind.
In any case here is the response I quickly sent him on Messenger, voice-dictating it while I was packing to leave for Guatemala,4 so ignore informalities and typos, which I have mostly not corrected. To be clear, I stand by my previous criticism of his speech at the Mises Institute (Gladish on Galambos at ASC) and of their decision to host him at all. I was not personal at all. I am interested in truth and justice and substance. Again, it is not my fault that he is a confused and low-level thinker and bad speaker, that he is confused about IP and had a weak enough mind to fall prey to Galambos’s obviously ridiculous ideas, nor is it my fault for noticing this, and I also did nothing wrong by plainly and bluntly stating this. The IP issue is so critically important to get right and the anti-IP perspective is such an unpopular and minority one that there can be no serious criticism of my efforts to expose this error whenever it appears, whenever I can, especially in forums and settings such as the Mises Institute which has for decades now mostly recognized the evil of IP (partly due to my own work there, as well as others like Jeff Tucker, Butler Shaffer, and so on).
So my response is here (only lightly edited; excuse informalities due to voice dictation):
Oh, you poor guy you’ve totally misunderstood. I’ll clarify later. Don’t worry it’s all gonna be fine.
More later but real quick here’s what you’re confused about first if you listen to my interview from just the other day and also the recent one with Michael Leibowitz on IP5 you’ll see that I’m perfectly capable of being civil. I do stand by what I said before about your thoughts, but that’s OK. I can separate thoughts from the person. Apparently you cannot.
By the way, you also are hypocritical because you revealed private conversations on your blog post which is totally inappropriate and unethical and also contradict your own Galambosian “primordial property” IP bullshit in your post. You’re contradictory and incoherent in your post because you’re unclear and you act on the one hand like you used to be a pro-IP Galambosian but you no longer are … but then you imply that you still are … so you don’t even know what you believe in. Which is one reason I wanted to talk to you for my podcast.
And finally, you seem to be kind of clueless about technology because you do realize we could record something and you could even control it and if you don’t want to release, we don’t have to release it. So you’re just afraid for no reason. A general paranoia that I guess accompanies the type of person who would be drawn to the crankish Galambos cult in the first place.
You must not be very bright, which may be why you fell into Galambos’s bullshit in the first place, but that’s OK. I’m not criticizing you for not being a genius.
The main reason I wanted to talk to you is exactly what I said. I wanted to give you a chance to explain what Galambos believes and why it attracted you what you think makes sense or doesn’t make sense anymore, and that’s it. And answer any questions you have about my view on IP. I don’t know what you so afraid of—there’s no “snake in the grass” bullshit; you just sound paranoid. But again, this may be why you became a Galambosian anyway— you may have a low IQ paranoid mindset.
You also seem to be timid and don’t have a thick skin, which is surprising for someone who takes such a bizarre stance as you and your fellow Galambosians do. We libertarians get used to ridicule and being viewed skeptically by others, and I’m sure you Galambosian cultists have it even worse. So why you have not developed a thick skin by now is beyond me.
But what is shocking and unethical is that you revealed private conversation details. Everyone I know knows that this is a no-no; you have no excuse for this especially given your quasi-IP views. It is totally immoral, totally unacceptable. I would never do something like that even to an enemy.
And I’m not your enemy, I’m just someone who’s honest and blunt. You should actually take it as a compliment that I took time to criticize your previous piece and to treat you seriously enough to pretend like your ideas matter. When I’m critical of people that means that if I’m complimentary or say something nice you know I must actually mean it because I’m actually sincere and I don’t hold my punches, but my post about your article was not personal. It was all about substance and ideas—again, maybe this is why you people don’t like people like me being plain and blunt because you can’t think straight, you’re emotional, and you can’t separate things.
I’m dictating this as I walk so forgive minor errors about to head to the airport to go to an economic conference in Guatemala where I will explain to them why IP is bullshit even though there are a couple of Randians there.
And by the way, again, this is nothing personal against poor, hapless Gladish. He seems like a nice guy, if a bit clueless and paranoid. And the offer still stands. I’ll discuss IP with anyone.
Now–off to catch my flight!
Saturday, April 05, 2025
The Vile Creature Stephan Kinsella
Stephan Kinsella and I have a contentious past, as he is anti-IP while I was at one time, due to having taken courses from Andrew J. Galambos, strongly pro-IP, even as a moral issue. My position has moderated since then as I have largely adopted a consequentialist and market-based approach to morality.
Last October (2024), Kinsella reached out to me on Facebook Messenger: “you still a libertarian?” I responded that I am, although by his criteria I am not as he believes pro-IP is a disqualifier. In the course of a few back and forths he apologized for some of his past behavior towards me: “If I was rude to you in the past, I apologize I could be a prick sometimes”. The conversation petered out until last Monday (3/31/2025) when I stumbled on an article by him about attempting to have a bust of Ludwig von Mises installed in the courtyard of the University of Vienna. I was complimentary to him about his effort to honor Mises in this way although it came to nought.
Then, yesterday (4/3/2025), out of the blue, he started up a conversation about me “chatting” with him on his podcast about “Your [my] thoughts on IPP by contract things like that we just discuss it”. I was inclined to accept as he seemed genuinely interested in a dialog. He followed up by sending me a link to a discussion he had with Sheldon Richman saying to me “you are mentioned”. And there, at the bottom of the page I found a link to a post where he criticized my talk on Galambos’s ideas at the 2012 Austrian Scholars Conference (ASC) in the most insulting and disrespectful manner possible. He even criticized the Mises Institute for having the temerity to allow an opposing view to be aired after they had “previously awarded me [Kinsella] the O.P. Alford III Prize for Against Intellectual Property.”
At that point I realized I had been set up. This snake in the grass was lulling me into a false sense of security, pretending to be interested in a civil exchange of ideas while most likely planning a non-stop, strawman-laden takedown. I am embarrassed that my gullibility made me fall for Kinsella’s overtures, but happy that I have avoided what would surely have been an unrelenting attack.
After I told him that I had reversed my decision and was uninterested in joining him on his podcast or any other platform, I received a venomous reply that confirmed my suspicions:
no skin off my back.
you guys need to lighten the fuck up though
but to be clear–it’s not my fault you are confused, or that I am honest in assessing your confusion. It’s Galambos’s, and yours. Not mine. I’ve done all I can do to clarify this area, and then to have the temerity to offer to you a discussion to help clear things up for you. This is the problem wtih you people–too fucking proud. No humlility.
Kinsella lets me know that rather than a discussion, I was in for a lecture “to clear things up for [me].” While he knows little of Galambos’s work and even less of what I think of Galambos’s work, he wants to end my confusion. Then, after having said in the above-referenced post that the Mises Institute should not have given me a platform for views that were opposed to his he claims that I, who travelled to that conference in 2012 fully expecting he would be there to engage me in discussion or debate, am the one lacking in humility. The fact is that I went there more to expose the participants to a different point of view than to defend it, and IP is not an issue that has concerned me much since that conference.
Kinsella is a person lacking in intellectual depth and the ability to be generous in the reading or evaluation of the work of others. For example, the idea that natural rights support any kind of argument is just ridiculous and is rejected by serious thinkers like Mises, Hayek, and Popper, among others. And to presume that someone else, about whom he knows almost nothing, is to be lectured about their confusion simply oozes arrogance. He is incapable of entertaining the thought that it is not confusion but genuine disagreement with his so-called arguments. The fact is, especially in my case, he has absolutely no idea where any disagreement might lie.
I don’t worry a bit that Kinsella’s views might succeed, as I think they will be swept away by market forces, as will Galambos’s if they do not bestow benefits on consumers—arguments are of no consequence in such a situation. We can only offer up our conjectures about how civilization might be improved and hope that our fellows find some value in them. There is a great quote from Albrecht Dürer that I found in Popper’s work:
But I shall let the little I have learnt go forth into the day in order that someone better than I may guess the truth, and in his work may prove and rebuke my error. At this I shall rejoice that I was yet a means whereby this truth has come to light.
That is true humility,
- On Galambos, see Galambos and Other Nuts; The Galambosians strike back; “Around this time I met the Galambosian.”; Was Galambos an IP Thief?; Galambos the Crank; Shades of Galambos: Man tries to copyright his name; Rothbard and Galambosians. [↩]
- Gladish on Galambos at ASC; his comments at: Have You Changed Your Mind About Intellectual Property?; Galambos and Other Nuts; Mises on Intellectual Property; Why Objectivists Hate Anarchy (Hint: IP). [↩]
- “Around this time I met the Galambosian.”: “‘If the rest of us were free to discuss his ideas,’ said the Galambosian, ‘there is no question in my mind that Galambosianism would spread throughout the world like wildfire.'” [↩]
- Speaking at APEE IP Panel in Guatemala. [↩]
- KOL440 | The Rational Egoist (Michael Liebowitz): Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property: Part IIb; KOL439 | The Rational Egoist (Michael Liebowitz): Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property: Part IIa; KOL438 | The Rational Egoist (Michael Liebowitz): Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property: Part I. [↩]
You must log in to post a comment. Log in now.