How Intellectual Property Hampers Capitalism

IP Law
Share

As noted on my media page, I’ll be delivering a speech entitled “How Intellectual Property Hampers Capitalism” at the Mises Institute Supporters’ Summit 2010, Oct. 8-9 2010, Auburn Alabama. The conference’s theme is “The Economic Recovery: Washington’s Big Lie.” There’s a dynamite list of speakers. The heroic Jim Rogers will be awarded the Gary G. Schlarbaum Prize, “For lifetime defense of liberty, given every year, awards $10,000 to a public intellectual or distinguished scholar.” I am looking forward to the entire event, especially the black-tie-optional reception and dinner honoring Mr. Rogers.

How Intellectual Property Hampers Capitalism Read Post »

Study IP with Kinsella Online

(Austrian) Economics, Education, IP Law, Libertarian Theory
Share

IPAs mentioned on the Mises Blog in Study with Kinsella Online, starting November 1 at the Mises Academy, I’ll be presenting the 6-week course Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics, with Monday evening lecture/question-and-answer sessions. An excerpt from the course description:

Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics

PP350 — with Stephan Kinsella

Cost: $125
Length: 6 weeks
Dates: November 1, 2010 – December 17, 2010

Click here to register for this course

This course is taught by Stephan Kinsella, a practicing patent attorney and author of Against Intellectual Property. This is a 6-week course and will run from November 1 until December 17 (with Thanksgiving week off), and will provide an overview of current intellectual property law and the history and origins of IP. The course will explore and offer critical analysis of various utilitarian and deontological justifications offered for IP. The course will analyze the proper relationship between property, scarcity, and ideas, and integrate the proper perspective on IP and the nature of ideas and information with Austrian economics and libertarian theory. Various legal and political reforms consistent with this perspective will be offered along with discussions of market and social institutions in a post-IP world. Optional testing will include a multiple-choice mid-term exam and a combined multiple-choice and essay final exam. Kinsella is Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute, editor of Libertarian Papers, General Counsel for Applied Optoelectronics, and was formerly an adjunct professor at South Texas College of Law. He has frequently lectured and published on IP law, international law, and the application of libertarian principles to legal topics, including Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (co-editor, with Jörg Guido Hülsmann, Mises Institute, 2009).

Course outline and further information available at the course page: Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics.

Study IP with Kinsella Online Read Post »

Article: Intent is Like Remorse

Articles, Libertarian Theory, Private Crime, Private Security & Law
Share

The argument of this article is that intent, like remorse, is irrelevant to restitution. By default, intent, like any other subjective value judgment,  should play the role of a restitution-discount variable determined by the victim of an aggressive act, not the arbitration company.

Jeremiah Dyke is an adjunct math professor and a libertarian writer. Feel free to contact him at [email protected] or through his website http://jeremiahdyke.blogspot.com/.

Read the Full Article by Jeremiah Dyke

Afterwards, discuss it below.

Article: Intent is Like Remorse Read Post »

A Critique of Frank van Dun’s “Against Libertarian Legalism”

Libertarian Theory
Share

The Belgian libertarian legal theorist Frank van Dun, author of the great “Argumentation Ethics and The Philosophy of Freedom,”1 in 2003 authored “Against Libertarian Legalism: A Comment on Kinsella and Block.” This generated Walter Block’s Reply to “Against Libertarian Legalism” by Frank van Dun and my Reply to van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer.

A fairly lengthy and critical comment on van Dun’s “Against Libertarian Legalism” was just posted at Answering Van Dun about the Non-Aggression Principle. The author would probably also disagree with some of van Dun’s “Freedom and Property: Where They Conflict.”

Update: See also Van Dun on Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement; and The Blockean Proviso.


  1. Libertarian Papers, 2009; see also my posts Van Dun on Argumentation Ethics and Revisiting Argumentation Ethics, and Walter Block, Reply to Frank van Dun’s “Natural Law and the Jurisprudence of Freedom” 

A Critique of Frank van Dun’s “Against Libertarian Legalism” Read Post »

A capital ism?

The Basics
Share

The debate over whether “capitalism” should be used by libertarians and other supporters of free markets waxes rather than wanes. Last week, Sheldon Richman published “Is Capitalism Something Good?” on Freeman Online. And I can see why Stephan Kinsella calls this an “extremely frustrating” debate. We never get very far.

My favorite of Richman’s points is lexical:

At the semantic level, capitalism is an unfortunate word when applied to the free market. It suggests a privileged status for capital over other factors of production, which is not the case in a free market. A capitalist is not a believer in capitalism but rather an owner of capital. One can be a socialist capitalist, that is, one who owns capital while favoring a system called socialism.

In my younger days of argumentation, people would sometimes accuse me of being a capitalist. Well, in those younger days I was broke. I had no savings. I had nothing to invest, and invested in nothing but my own mind. So I would correct them: “Hey, I’m near the poverty line. No capitalists down here! Besides, I support laissez-faire because it regulates businesses: It enforces a rule of law that disallows businesses from demanding I pay for their goods if I don’t want their goods, or pay more than I would under competition, which laissez faire also enforces. I am not a capitalist, because I insist that we keep capitalists in their place.” …

A capital ism? Read Post »

Scroll to Top