C4SIF.org

Daniel Lacalle on Twitter: “China bans US exports ans businesses and steal intelectual property.” I have no doubt that most of Lacalle’s criticisms of China are true. But not this one.

Lacalle seems to be unaware that mis-named and dishonestly-named “intellectual property” (IP)¹ is actually antithetical, hostile, and contrary to free markets, capitalism, private property, and so on, and that Austrians and libertarians—especially Austro-libertarians, and especially those affiliated with the Mises Institute (see this recent Tweet by the Mises Bookstore, for example)—by and large now recognize this.² IP is socialistic and destructive, and downright evil to the core. We would never endorse the institution of IP. As I wrote previously, [continue reading…]

1. “Intellectual Properganda.” [↩]
2. See Stephan Kinsella, “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism,” in You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023); also idem, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023), Part IV; idem, ed., The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023); idem, Against Intellectual Property. [↩]

From my Tweet:

I’ve really come to like the @theallinpod podcast, with @chamath, @jason,  @davidsacks, and @friedberg. In a recent episode, however (https://overcast.fm/+AAYlhlXNXk8), there is confusion about IP and China. At about 1:00:45, Friedberg starts talking about 3 of his concerns about protectionist tariffs– but the worst, for him (at 1:05:15) is he is “most worried about” — is China just ignoring IP rights (patents and copyright, I assume?) of Americans or foreigners and then, I guess, “take” American IP rights and, I guess, use it to make copies and sell it “all around the world”.

This is very confused. First, it is not true, Calacanis implies, that China doesn’t respect IP rights now. Sure, they don’t do a “great job” of it, but no one does since it’s impossible to stop all piracy. Even the US can’t, with with its insane IP laws. Just as the US drug war doesn’t stop drugs; we can’t even stop them in prisons. It’s impossible to prevent copying (not “theft!”)¹ in any system since it is a unnatural and immoral law. The fact that China doens’t stop it as well as the US does doesn’t mean they have no IP system. They do, do all other countries. (( IP can’t be socialistic, since the Soviet Union didn’t recognize IP law )) [continue reading…]

1. Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft” and “piracy” [↩]

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 458.

As mentioned in Speaking at APEE IP Panel in Guatemala, yesterday (April 7, 2025) I spoke on a panel at the APEE 49th Meeting in Guatemala. The theme of this year’s meeting was “The Economic History of State and Market Institutions,” April 6-8, 2025, Guatemala City, Guatemala (program). My panel was Panel 50. [1.E.06] “Intellectual Property: Old Problems and New Developments,” Monday, April 7, 2025, 3:50 pm-5:05 pm, Breakout06. Organizer: Monica Rio Nevado de Zelaya, Universidad Francisco Marroquín;
Chair: Ramón Parellada, Universidad Francisco Marroquín. My full panel:

Read more>>

Whereas retarded pro-IP libertarians and most Objectivists favor intellectual property (IP) such as patent and copyright law,

Whereas patent law impedes innovation and violates property rights, and

Whereas copyright law censors speech and the press, distorts culture, violates property rights, threatens Internet freedom, and is now already hampering and impeding the development of AI technology,

I hereby move: To Ban and Estop¹ Objectivists and Pro-IP Libertarians from Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) since by advocating IP they seek to hamper AI technology itself.²

***

I’m reminded here of Ayn Rand’s angry cursing of Nathaniel Branden after she discovered his lies and affairs: “If you have an ounce of morality left in you, an ounce of psychological health—you’ll be impotent for the next twenty years! And if you achieve any potency, you’ll know it’s a sign of still worse moral degradation!” Likewise, one would think that Sandefur, after having the terrible judgment to support the Iraq War, might refrain from commenting in public on libertarian matters for a while, or at least on matters of war.³

1. “Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 12, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 51–73; “Estoppel: A New Justification for Individual Rights,” Reason Papers No. 17 (Fall 1992): 61–74; “Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights,” in The Dialectics of Liberty (Lexington Books, 2019); The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory. [↩]
2. Libertarian and IP Answer Man: Artificial Intelligence and IP. [↩]
3. See similar comments on pro-war libertarians at The “deeply dishonest” opponents of the President …. [↩]

Paraphrasing Murray N. Rothbard, who said:

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

I would say:

It is no crime to be ignorant of intellectual property law economics and policy, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be eye-glazingly boring. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on intellectual property law while remaining in this state of ignorance.

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: [continue reading…]

1. 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. [↩]
2. 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). [↩]

As I relate here, My Failed Libertarian Speaking Hiatus; Memories of Mises Institute and Other Events, 1988–20192025, I’m trying this year to slow down, or at least change, the number of libertarian and related events I attend this year. For example I recently attended a completely non-normative (well mostly) and non-libertarian scholarly legal conference which I thoroughly enjoyed.¹

I had initially planned to speak at the APEE 49th Meeting in Guatemala City, making it into a 5-day guy trip vacation with my buddy Greg Morin. In January I bowed out because I was juggling too much. But recently I changed my mind and decided to attend and speak after all, but only attending for one full day. So this year I am presenting on “Patent and Copyright versus Innovation, Competition, and Property Rights,” APEE 49th Meeting, “The Economic History of State and Market Institutions,” April 6-8, 2025, Guatemala City, Guatemala (program; other info). [continue reading…]

1. The Louisiana Civil Code of 1825: Content, Influences and Languages; Past and Future: Returning to my Louisiana Roots. [↩]