Kinsella’s “Libertarian Controversies” Course: Audio and Slides

Anti-Statism, Education, Libertarian Theory, Statism

By Stephan Kinsella / December 31, 2011 / 1 Comment / 7 minutes of reading

At the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society (May 27-29, 2011), I delivered a speech entitled “Correcting some Common Libertarian Misconceptions.” The video is here, and streamed below. It engendered a good deal of discussion and interest, and I could only touch on a small number of the topics I had assembled over the years, so later in the year, I conducted a 6 week Mises Academy course, “Libertarian Controversies” (Mondays, Sept. 19-Oct. 23, 2011), to cover these and related topics in greater depth. The course was planned for 5 weeks initially, but I added a sixth “bonus” lecture at student request. The course is discussed in my Mises Daily article “Libertarian Controversies.”) The audio and slides for the 6 lectures of the course are provided below, following the PFS lecture, below. The “suggested readings” for each lecture are appended to the end of this post.

Earlier courses included “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics” (discussed on the Mises Blog in Study with Kinsella Online; Lecture 1), in late 2010, which I reprised in Spring 2011: “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics” (discussed in Rethinking IP; and on the Mises Blog in Study with Kinsella Online and in Rethinking Intellectual Property: Kinsella’s Mises Academy Online Course); “Libertarian Legal Theory“; and “The Social Theory of Hoppe.” The audio and slides for the Rethinking IP course are available here, and here for Libertarian Legal Theory (Hoppe course material coming soon).

In Teaching an Online Mises Academy Course, I offer my reflections on teaching the Rethinking IP class the first time. Here is some feedback provided by past students of the Rethinking IP course:

“The class (everything) was perfect. Content wasn’t too deep (nor too shallow) – the reviewed material was just brilliant and the “tuning” was great for someone like myself (engineering background – no profound legal/lawyer experience). It provided all the material to really “understand” (instead of “just knowing”) all that was covered which I find always very important in a class.”

“Instruction was very comprehensive and thought provoking. The instructor was fantastic and very knowledgeable and answered every question asked.”

“Learned more then i expected, the professor seemed to really enjoy teaching the class, and the readings provided were excellent. Overall for the cost I was extremely satisfied.”

“Very interesting ideas I was not exposed to. Inexpensive, convenient, good quality.”

“It is a very fascinating topic and I was quite eager to learn about what I.P. is all about. I thought that Professor Kinsella was able to convey complicated issues to us clearly.”

“Professor Kinsella’s enthusiasm and extra links posted showed his true knowledge and interest in the subject. Great to see.”

And:

Thank you so very much for all the excellent work — very few classes have really changed my life dramatically, actually only 3 have, and all 3 were classes I took at the Mises Academy, starting with Rethinking Intellectual Property (PP350) (the other two were EH476 (Bubbles), and PP900 (Private Defense)). …

My purposes for taking the classes are: 1. just for the fun of it, 2. learning & self-education, and 3. to understand what is happening with some degree of clarity so I can eventually start being part of the solution where I live — or at least stop being part of the problem.

The IP class was a total blast — finally (finally) sound reasoning. All the (three) classes I took dramatically changed the way I see the world. I’m still digesting it all, to tell the truth. Very few events in my life have managed to make me feel like I wished I was 15 all over again. Thank you. …

[M]uch respect and admiration for all the great work done by all the members of the whole team.

Students would often give real-time feedback, in comments such as the following at the end of the lectures (these are from the actual IP-lecture chat transcripts):

“Thank you, great lecture!”
“Thanks, excellent lecture.”
“Great job.”
“Great lecture!”
“Thank you, Sir. Great lecture!”
“Thanks for an excellent talk.”

Student reaction to the first lecture of my Libertarian Legal Theory course can be found in Student Comments for First Lecture of Libertarian Legal Theory Course: Not Too Late to Sign Up!

“The class (everything) was perfect. Content wasn’t too deep (nor too shallow) – the reviewed material was just brilliant and the “tuning” was great for someone like myself (engineering background – no profound legal/lawyer experience). It provided all the material to really “understand” (instead of “just knowing”) all that was covered which I find always very important in a class.”

“Instruction was very comprehensive and thought provoking. The instructor was fantastic and very knowledgeable and answered every question asked.”

“Learned more then i expected, the professor seemed to really enjoy teaching the class, and the readings provided were excellent. Overall for the cost I was extremely satisfied.”

“Very interesting ideas I was not exposed to. Inexpensive, convenient, good quality.”

“It is a very fascinating topic and I was quite eager to learn about what I.P. is all about. I thought that Professor Kinsella was able to convey complicated issues to us clearly.”

“Professor Kinsella’s enthusiasm and extra links posted showed his true knowledge and interest in the subject. Great to see.”

***

Update: the audio files may also be subscribed to in this podcast feed. (In iTunes (for Windows) you can subscribe to podcast by copying the feed address to iTunes>Advanced>Subscribe to podcast; on Macs, you can click on the link to have iTunes add it to podcasts.)

“Correcting some Common Libertarian Misconceptions,” 2011 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society (May 27-29, 2011) (video)

pfs-2011 Stephan Kinsella, Correcting Some Common Libertarian Misconceptions from Sean Gabb on Vimeo.

“Libertarian Controversies”: Mises Academy (Mondays, Sept. 19-Oct. 23, 2011)

LECTURE 1:

(mp3 download)

LECTURE 2: …

Kinsella’s “Libertarian Controversies” Course: Audio and SlidesRead More »

Kinsella’s “Libertarian Controversies” Course: Audio and Slides Read Post »

Who Should Control the World?

Anti-Statism, Business

By Jeffrey Tucker / December 26, 2011 / 2 Comments / 6 minutes of reading

In the days following the gift-giving holidays, many millions of people stand in judgement over the quality of the gifts they gave and the gifts they receive. Did they arrive on time? Did the quality hold up? Did the reality match the advertising hype? The Internet ads an extra wrinkle. Anyone dissatisfied can post blistering attacks on any merchant and the product in questions. Anyone can vote up or vote down.

The down votes are what make the news. The Wall Street Journal tells the story of Scott Mitchell of Connecticut, who purchased from Best Buy and Playstation 3 for his two sons ages 10 and 14.The company let him know via an email that the goods didn’t arrive. He was furious and wouldn’t stop posting diatribes against the company. Eventually, the suits got involved and sent him his full bundle of goods at a low price plus a $200 gift certificate.

“While I can’t say I’m happy, I wound up being satisfied,” Mr. Mitchell told the Journal.

The case was cited as one of many such cases. Consumer demand was so intense that Best Buy got behind. The company didn’t have the inventory it needed to fill all requests. Cyber Monday overloaded the staff and they couldn’t respond fast enough. Any business that hears the story thinks: nice problem to have. Inventory decisions like this require daily clairvoyance.

What’s more important here is what this anecdote indicates about the social order. In this setting above, who is in control? Mr. Mitchell is just one lone guy with one problem with a company that serves untold millions. But he had a voice and his voice was heard. The company scrambled to please him.

…

Who Should Control the World?Read More »

Who Should Control the World? Read Post »

Rothbard vs. CATO’s Richard Epstein on the Benefits of Violent Looting

Anti-Statism, Taxation

By Stephan Kinsella / December 23, 2011 / 2 minutes of reading

Interesting post from Libertarian News:

Rothbard vs. CATO’s Richard Epstein on the Benefits of Violent Looting

December 17, 2011

By michaelsuede

Adam Liptak and Richard Epstein discuss the most efficient way to rob people.

After listening to Epstein run his ivory tower mouth, my fury over his nonsensical bullshit hath runneth over. A video reading of the following article can be found here for those of you that don’t have the patience to read long text articles.

Epstein admits that, “There is no coercive action by government which will have the same beneficent effects of voluntary transactions in competitive markets,” yet flushes his own statement down the toilet when he adds, ”but you can’t get competitive markets with respect to the provision of public goods and you can’t get competitive markets with respect to the operation of network industries.”

Epstein never bothers to explain why “public goods” are of such necessary importance that VIOLENCE against PEACEFUL PEOPLE should be advocated in order to pay for them.

Epstein lists off a few so-called libertarian economists that support the initiation of violence against the innocent to pay for public goods, including Locke and Hayek, but he never bothers to mention the rest of the libertarian economics field, the majority of which disagree with the legitimization of the initiation of violence.

Let’s start off with the parable of the robber by Rothbard to demonstrate why any violent theft can not lead to a more productive society. The following citations all come from the essay The Myth of Neutral Taxation, by Murray Rothbard:

New Anti-SOPA Song & Crowdsourced Video From Dan Bull

Anti-Statism, Education, IP Law, Police Statism, Pop Culture

By Stephan Kinsella / December 20, 2011 / 4 minutes of reading

I noted previously a brilliant music video, “Death of ACTA,” by Dan Bull. (More on ACTA, which has unfortunately now been signed by several countries.) Now he’s back with a new one, in a very creative attempt to fight the evil Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. As Mike Masnick notes in this Techdirt post (see below),

Perhaps even more interesting, however, is how the song and video came together. After deciding he wanted to write a song about SOPA, he reached out to his followers on Twitter, asking for “help with themes and lyrics.” After getting a bunch of ideas, and realizing he should do something different for the video, he went on Facebook and asked for volunteers to take photos of themselves holding up signs with the various lyrics… and tons and tons of people jumped at the chance. The whole video was put together over the last few hours, and the whole effort is pretty impressive.

Incidentally, Leo Laporte, host of TWiT, and Denise Howell, host of TWiT’s This Week in Law, in recent episodes have been heroic in opposing SOPA. In the most recent TWiT show, Laporte makes a strong argument in favor of Internet freedom and against limiting it in the name of copyright, in contradistinction to Nilay Patel, who takes a more mainstream and confused “balancing” approach. And in a recent episode of TWiL, where most of the commentators and guests tend to be anti-SOPA, lawyer Marty Schwimmer was invited on to defend the need for SOPA or something like it; Howell admirably dissents.

[C4SIF]

Here’s Masnick’s post:

New Anti-SOPA Song & Crowdsourced Video From Dan Bull

from the sopa-can-ban-ya dept

We’ve written about UK singer Dan Bull a bunch of times, highlighting his various songs that often cover copyright issues. His latest is an anti-SOPA song and video, called SOPA Cabana (take a wild guess what that’s a reference to). Check out the video here first, and read on below about the video and why it’s interesting (beyond the music/lyrics):

First of all, what strikes me as most interesting about this is that Dan’s not in the US, but the UK. But he recognizes how this law being debated in the US can have a significant and dangerous impact around the world. In talking about his reasons for doing a song about SOPA, Dan noted that “SOPA is abhorrent on three fronts:”

Firstly, it threatens the future of the internet, which is something far more valuable both commercially and socially than the entertainment industry ever has been, or ever will be.

Secondly, creativity is all about interpreting and re-imagining what you see and hear around you. The idea that creativity exists in some kind of vacuum, and that you’re not a real artist unless you can make something “completely original” is not only stupid, it contradicts the most fundamental axioms of how the universe works. Everything is influenced by something else. If we want a richer cultural landscape, we should embrace remixes, embrace mashups, and embrace sharing, not cling to ideas as pieces of property.

Thirdly, the internet is an amazing new forum for free speech and holding those in power us to account. The idea that governments and even private corporations can police the internet and decide what people on a global scale are allowed to say and hear is tyrannical.

Perhaps even more interesting, however, is how the song and video came together. After deciding he wanted to write a song about SOPA, he reached out to his followers on Twitter, asking for “help with themes and lyrics.” After getting a bunch of ideas, and realizing he should do something different for the video, he went on Facebook and asked for volunteers to take photos of themselves holding up signs with the various lyrics… and tons and tons of people jumped at the chance. The whole video was put together over the last few hours, and the whole effort is pretty impressive.

Dan Bull is a musician. The entertainment industry and the lobbyists supporting SOPA insist that they’re doing this to protect people like Dan Bull — but Dan is quite reasonably scared of what this law will do to his ability to succeed online. Dan Bull is as well known as he is because of the internet, and his ability to share his works wherever and however he likes. SOPA would make that a lot more difficult. It doesn’t “protect” Dan Bull. It helps destroy the careers of folks like Dan Bull by limiting their ability to create, promote, distribute and communicate.

New Anti-SOPA Song & Crowdsourced Video From Dan Bull Read Post »

The evil SOPA is dead …. for now…. [Update: or not…]

Anti-Statism, IP Law, Police Statism, Protectionism, Technology

By Stephan Kinsella / December 16, 2011 / 2 minutes of reading

Update, from Masnick’s post below: “Update…. Or not. Despite the fact that Congress was supposed to be out of session until the end of January, the Judiciary Committee has just announced plans to come back to continue the markup this coming Wednesday. This is rather unusual and totally unnecessary. But it shows just how desperate Hollywood is to pass this bill as quickly as possible, before the momentum of opposition builds up even further.”