From X:
Dear Mr Kinsella,
Thank you for your work in libertarianism. I have several questions for you, and I hope you have the time to check them out.
1. In your opinion, in an ideal libertarian world without state-enforced IP, how would we deal with piracy of content (movies, sports livestreams, music, etc.). Would it be purely resolved contractually? If a lot of information and entertainment is spread through code and radio waves, does that mean it cannot be ‘property’ because two people can use a radio wave or line of code without infringing on each other? What am I missing here?
There would be no such thing as piracy in an IP free world since piracy implies illegality and copying and competing would not be illegal. Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft” and “piracy”; Copying, Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement are not “Theft”, Stealing, Piracy, Plagiarism, Knocking Off, Ripping Off.
But I take it you mean how would people deal with competition and copying of their products and books and movies (not piracy, but copying). They’d have to figure it out. Somehow. They could whine as they do now but no one would respond by giving them a patent or copyright. It’s not the job of political theory to tell entrepreneurs how to make a profit in the face of competition. As is displayed on my site:
That said, some ideas here:
- “Examples of Ways Content Creators Can Profit Without Intellectual Property“
- “Innovations that Thrive without IP“
- “Funding for Creation and Innovation in an IP-Free World“
But it’s not my job to do entrepreneurs’ jobs for them or to guarantee they have some way to make a profit. No one has the right to make a profit or a right to the “fruits of their labor” blah blah blah. Profit is unnatural and always temporary without a state granted monopoly, and success invites imitation, copying, emulation, and competition, which always tends to eat away at the temporary unnatural profits so that they tend to the natural rate of interest. Down with profit, the profit motive, and incentives! (I kid … partly.)
2. In Mises’s great brief book (compiled from a speech he gave in Argentina), [Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow] he writes on page 4:
“Freedom of the press does not mean that you have the right to copy what another man has written and thus to acquire the success which this other man has duly merited on account of his achievements. It means that you have the right to write something different. ”
Does this go against your stance on intellectual property? Seems to me like he is defending copyright laws… or is he merely saying you do not have the right to copy, albeit you may be permitted to do so?
I have addressed this in Mises on Intellectual Property. Mises was wobbly on IP but I think this passage is not really pro-copyright. As I write there: “This passage implies some possible support for copyright but it only loose; here his focus is on competition and how success invites it, and how the right to compete, say with an existing railroad, doesn’t mean just do what they do but compete in other ways. He is not saying you don’t have the right to exactly emulate an existing market player, only that this is probably not the way to do it. I think he is making a similar point about authors copying others, and he throws in the line about trying to take credit for others’ achievements but this comment if anything seems to have more to do with reputation (covered by defamation and trademark, not copyright) than with copyright, and with honesty and integrity, not copyright.”
3. Small final question: Do you think you will return to the Mises Institute sometime soon? Maybe for a Mises University? I hope to see you in person!
I doubt it. I think my time there has run its course.
***
From [X]: “Thank you very much for your detailed reply. It perfectly answered my doubts. Your body of work is truly inspiring!”
***
From [X]:
Dear Mr Kinsella,
I was having difficulty understanding radio waves under a libertarian framework, but the following ChatGPT response, inspired by you and Rothbard, has helped me clarify [see below].
I hope it is correct by your standards. If yes, then my correspondence with AI is increasingly proving to be an effective replacement for actually emailing writers. This is an incredible resource for dead thinkers of the past, but I don’t want to waste the opportunity to check the AI with you directly.
From ChatGPT:
Excellent — that’s exactly the kind of skeptical twist most people miss.
You’re asking:
If someone “owns” the right to emit on a frequency, does that mean others can’t listen to it?
That’s the right question — because it probes whether the Rothbard/Kinsella framework implies exclusive use of both transmission and reception. Let’s take it apart surgically.
1. ⚙️ The structure of radio activity
We have two separate physical acts:
Emission: actively producing electromagnetic radiation (transmission).
Reception: passively detecting radiation (listening).
Only the first involves causal use of a scarce physical resource — you are emitting energy into the world.
The second is merely measurement — perceiving signals that already exist.
2. 💡 Under Rothbard/Kinsella property logic
Transmission = Action on scarce means
When you broadcast, you’re using real, rivalrous physical phenomena (EM emissions, power, antennas, etc.).
Interference can destroy another’s signal — that’s why the use-right arises.
Listening = Observation of effects
When you listen, you’re not altering or using up anything scarce.
You’re just registering radiation that’s already propagating — you don’t exclude anyone else from listening.
Therefore:
Listening to a frequency cannot be aggression or theft, because it does not invade or alter anyone’s scarce resource.
3. 🔍 Example
Imagine Alice broadcasts music at 100 MHz.
If Bob transmits at the same frequency, jamming Alice’s signal → aggression (violates her established use pattern).
If Bob merely tunes his receiver to listen → totally non-invasive.
→ No property conflict, no exclusion needed, no violation.
4. 🧠 Kinsella’s angle
Kinsella makes this distinction explicit in his writings about information and observation:
“Observing or learning from others’ actions or emissions is not aggression, since it does not deprive them of control over any scarce resource.”
In other words:
Information (like a pattern of sound or light) cannot be “stolen.”
Only interference with control over physical means counts as aggression.
So if Alice wants to keep her transmissions private, it’s her responsibility to encrypt or shield them — not to claim a right that others must not listen.
5. 📻 Rothbard’s view aligns
Rothbard also emphasizes that property rights derive from physical interference.
Listening to EM radiation doesn’t physically interfere with the broadcaster’s emission or the medium.So unless your listening equipment reflects or jams (i.e. changes the field), there’s no rights violation.
6. 🚫 Common misconception
Some people confuse “privacy” with “property.”
But under strict libertarian natural-law logic:
You have no right to others’ ignorance.
You only have a right to control your own physical boundaries.
Therefore, listening to a frequency — even one someone else uses or “owns” by homesteading — is perfectly legitimate.
7. 🧱 Summary Table
Action Physical causality Scarce resource involved Libertarian status Broadcasting Yes — emits EM waves Yes — exclusive use zone Can be owned/homesteaded Interfering transmission Yes — disrupts existing use Yes Aggression Listening (receiving) No — passive observation No Perfectly legitimate Recording / decoding Still observation No Legitimate; info not ownable
🧭 TL;DR
Under Rothbard and Kinsella:
You can own the right to emit, but not the right to be unobserved.
Listening to radio waves — even private ones — is not a rights violation, because it involves no interference with anyone’s scarce resource.
If you want, I can show you how Block, Hoppe, and Tinsley diverge a bit — some of them flirt with recognizing privacy-based restrictions (e.g. encrypted communication as “implicit boundary markers”), but that pushes the theory in interesting — and possibly inconsistent — directions. Want to go there?
Kinsella:
I have touched on this topic here and there, e.g. Why Airwaves (Electromagnetic Spectra) Are (Arguably) Property
You must log in to post a comment. Log in now.