DOCSLIB.ORG

I Am Stephan Kinsella, a Patent Attorney and Austrian Economics and Anarc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I Am Stephan Kinsella, a Patent Attorney and Austrian Economics and Anarc I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc... http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella... I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarchist libertarian writer who thinks patent and copyright should be abolished. AMA (self.IAmA) submitted 15 days ago by nskinsella I'm a practicing patent lawyer, and have written and spoken a good deal on libertarian and free market topics. I founded and am executive editor of Libertarian Papers (http://www.libertarianpapers.org/ ), and director of Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (http://c4sif.org/ ). I am a follower of the Austrian school of economics (as exemplified by Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe) and anarchist libertarian propertarianism, as exemplified by Rothbard and Hoppe. I believe in reason, individualism, the free market, technology, and society, and think the state is evil and should be abolished. I also believe intellectual property (patent and copyright) is completely unjust, statist, protectionist, and utterly incompatible with private property rights, capitalism, and the free market, and should not be reformed, but abolished. Ask me anything. 2336 comments share top 500 comments sorted by: best [–] skillip 21 points 15 days ago* Can voluntary user agreements create results similar to copyright/patents? If not, how? If so, are they consistent with you free market principals? permalink [–] nskinsella [S] 43 points 14 days ago No, they cannot. Contracts are just transfers of title to owned scarce resources, and they cannot, in any event, affect third parties. I deal wit this in the reserved rights section of Against Intellectual Property, at www.c4sif.org permalink parent [–] donjuancho 7 points 14 days ago* There could be voluntary agreements, such as a Non-disclosure agreement(NDA). You could 1 of 79 2/6/2013 6:21 PM I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc... http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella... a Non-disclosure agreement(NDA). You could have each company that is interested in your product sign this. This would say that they can't make your product unless they agree to your terms and they can't disclose to others any of the information you send them. If they break the agreement you are entitled to a certain amount of money based on the contract. I believe this would fit with the contract theory of property. Edit:Grammer permalink parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] acusticthoughts 30 points 15 days ago* How do we balance the need for individuals who invest great amounts of time in techniques and technologies that don't have the ability to go to a broad market with those who do? The best illustration would be someone like Edison who had the connections to get things to the world but didn't necessarily invent them. If we keep technologies secret until we figure out how to make money off of them - might we miss out on much? It seems like the patenting ability gives legal protection to put your ideas out there. And an NDA doesn't seem the same as worldwide patent protection. Of course, there is much potential benefit I see from so many who have put all of their plans and ideas out there (free music for one that leads toward concerts, etc). Seems like with the current system the little guy benefits at a certain point and then begins to lose out at a certain point to the big guys... What is your basic philosophy on how to get ideas to the marketplace? permalink [–] nskinsella [S] 55 points 14 days ago the purpose of law is to protect property rights, not to ensure entrepreneurs of every type can make a profit; that is their job. but for some ideas of what is possible, see http://c4sif.org /2012/01/conversation-with-an-author-about- copyright-and-publishing-in-a-free-society/ permalink parent [–] acusticthoughts 14 points 14 days ago Two points - 1. Are the things we have spent our personal time on not our property? 2. How do we balance the free information concept with the fact that we do need to make money to exist in this world. If we couldn't make money in the world we wouldn't be able to buy food. No 2 of 79 2/6/2013 6:21 PM I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc... http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella... world we wouldn't be able to buy food. No food no science. As a side - I want all knowledge to be free because I believe the long term benefits are multiplied so greatly that any individual would benefit so much more than if they were to hold it close. However, we still live at a point where the prisoner's dilemma is real and to give it up usually means individual loss. permalink parent [–] nskinsella [S] 36 points 14 days ago spending time on something does not generate property rights. you don't own your labor, or your work. you only own your body and other scarce resoures that you (a) homestaed from their unowned state in nature, or (b) you acquire by contract from a previous owner. That's all you can or do own. Nothing else. Creation is neither necessary nor sufficient for property; this is a mistaken notion, as is Locke's confused labor theory of property which gave rise to Marxist crap. permalink parent [–] acusticthoughts 25 points 14 days ago* Why do I not own my labor or my work? If both of those things are direct by products of my own choices and my own body (and my labor and my work are scarce resources that I am homesteading from the earth if you want to get technical) - then it seems they are my property. Especially since my body and my time is a scarce resource. If we want to play the contract game - that seems kinda trivial compared to natural law. I am the possessor of this body, this body can do X, Y and Z. I am the one who chooses what to do, as such, anything I do is mine. How are these things not mine? permalink parent [–] legba 15 points 14 days ago I think what Stephan means is that your work isn't tangible property. You have to apply your labor in a productive manner to shape a scarce resource to useful purpose before your work is transformed into your property. For example, you could spend a day digging holes and filling them back up, thus expending your labor for no tangible result. On the other hand, you could put seeds into those holes before you filled them up, and then tend to the plants that grow from them, and those plants (and their fruit) would be considered your property. Labor 3 of 79 2/6/2013 6:21 PM I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarc... http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1727he/i_am_stephan_kinsella... them, and those plants (and their fruit) would be considered your property. Labor on its own is nothing unless it creates tangible results. permalink parent [–] thizzacre 3 points 13 days ago Value is created by work; price is created by supply and demand. The value of a sound recording might be quite high, and the demand may also be quite high. The problem is that without creating artificial scarcity, the supply is infinite. Therefore the free market is not be able to compensate the people who have created the value. permalink parent [–] legba 3 points 13 days ago That's not quite true. The supply is only theoretically infinite, yet in practice it requires distribution. Take for example a simple item like a metal nail. For all intents and purposes, the supply of nails is infinite, since there are so many producers, it's so easy to produce and the material that it's made of is so cheap and plentiful that the price of the individual nail is almost negligible. And yet, despite all this, nail producers are still able to make a profit by creating them. It's because the distribution is NOT infinite, nor can it be. If you need nails, you'll probably go to a hardware store, or order them from a hardware store. You won't go to a newsstand or a bakery to buy nails. In the same way, content producers could continue making profit by focusing on distribution, rather than the product itself. Yes, I can go and download a movie or a song from wherever I want even now. The legal repercussion of such an act is almost non-existent. Why then, do I still pay for Netflix, Hulu, and buy music and apps on iTunes, etc.? Because I value my time more. I want these things delivered to me whenever I want them, in a way I prefer. So piracy really isn't a problem of supply, it's problem of distribution and availability. permalink parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (11 replies) [–] buffalo_pete 15 points 14 days ago (Not /u/nskinsella .) Why do I not own my labor or my work? You do, of course. If someone else duplicates your work, that's their labor and their work and they own it. For instance, if I make a digital copy of a piece of music, that's my hard drive and my electricity and my time. None of those things are yours. I'm not taking anything away from you; you still have everything you had before.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rent-Seeking: a Primer by Sanford Ikeda
    ON LIBERTY November 2003 Vol. 53, No. 10 FEATURES 8 The Economics of Spam by Christopher Westley 10 Business Under German Inflation by Ludwig von Mises 14 Healers Under Siege by Doug Bandow 19 Understanding "Austrian" Economics, Part 2 by Henry Hazlitt 24 Rent-Seeking: A Primer by Sanford Ikeda 29 Grutter v. Bollinger: A Constitutional Embarrassment by George C. Leef 33 Global Warming: Extreme Weather or Extreme Prejudice? by Christopher Lingle 37 The Fallacies of Distributism by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. 4 FROM the PRESIDENT—-The Great German Inflation by Richard M. Ebeling «««« 17 THOUGHTS on FREEDOM—Oblivious to the Obvious by Donald J. Boudreaux 27 PERIPATETICS—Canute's Courtiers Were Wrong by Sheldon Richman 35 OUR ECONOMIC PAST— How the Federal Government Got into the Ocean-Shipping Business by Robert Higgs 47 THE PURSUIT of HAPPINESS—-People Before Profits by Walter E. Williams DEPA RT/V\ E NTS 2 Perspective—Weighing In by Sheldon Richman 6 Massive Foreign Aid Is the Solution to Africa's Ills? It Just Ain't So! by William Thomas 42 Book Reviews Adam Smith's Marketplace of Life by James R. Otteson, reviewed by Robert Batemarco; The Great Tax Wars: Lincoln to Wilson—The Fierce Battles over Money and Power that Transformed the Nation by Steven R. Weisman, reviewed by Burton W. Folsom, Jr.; Pieces of Eight by Edwin Vieira, Jr., reviewed by George C. Leef; Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil by James Bovard, reviewed by Richard M. Ebeling. Published by The Foundation for Economic Education IDEAS Irvington-on-Hudson, NY 10533 Phone: (800) 960-4FEE; (914) 591-7230 PERSPECTIVE ON LIBERTY Fax: (914) 591-8910; E-mail: [email protected] FEE Home Page: www.fee.org Weighing In President: Richard M.
    [Show full text]
  • Markets Not Capitalism Explores the Gap Between Radically Freed Markets and the Capitalist-Controlled Markets That Prevail Today
    individualist anarchism against bosses, inequality, corporate power, and structural poverty Edited by Gary Chartier & Charles W. Johnson Individualist anarchists believe in mutual exchange, not economic privilege. They believe in freed markets, not capitalism. They defend a distinctive response to the challenges of ending global capitalism and achieving social justice: eliminate the political privileges that prop up capitalists. Massive concentrations of wealth, rigid economic hierarchies, and unsustainable modes of production are not the results of the market form, but of markets deformed and rigged by a network of state-secured controls and privileges to the business class. Markets Not Capitalism explores the gap between radically freed markets and the capitalist-controlled markets that prevail today. It explains how liberating market exchange from state capitalist privilege can abolish structural poverty, help working people take control over the conditions of their labor, and redistribute wealth and social power. Featuring discussions of socialism, capitalism, markets, ownership, labor struggle, grassroots privatization, intellectual property, health care, racism, sexism, and environmental issues, this unique collection brings together classic essays by Cleyre, and such contemporary innovators as Kevin Carson and Roderick Long. It introduces an eye-opening approach to radical social thought, rooted equally in libertarian socialism and market anarchism. “We on the left need a good shake to get us thinking, and these arguments for market anarchism do the job in lively and thoughtful fashion.” – Alexander Cockburn, editor and publisher, Counterpunch “Anarchy is not chaos; nor is it violence. This rich and provocative gathering of essays by anarchists past and present imagines society unburdened by state, markets un-warped by capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarianism, Feminism, and Nonviolent Action: a Synthesis
    LIBERTARIAN PAPERS VOL. 4, NO. 2 (2012) LIBERTARIANISM, FEMINISM, AND NONVIOLENT ACTION: A SYNTHESIS GRANT BABCOCK* I. Introduction MURRAY ROTHBARD’S CONTRIBUTION to libertarian ethics was to outline a theory prohibiting aggressive violence (1978, p. 27-30). The influence of Rothbard’s ethics,1 combined with a decades-long political alliance with conservatives based on anticommunism, has produced a debate within libertarian circles about whether libertarians qua libertarians must take positions against certain forms of repression that do not involve aggressive violence. The non-aggression principle is as good a libertarian litmus test as has been suggested. Often, the voices who levy allegations of non-aggressive (or at least not exclusively aggressive) oppression come from the political left, and have un-libertarian (read: aggressive) solutions in mind, even if they do not conceive of those solutions as violent. Despite these considerations, I do believe that libertarians qua libertarians are obligated to say something about the kind of non-aggressive oppression that these voices from the left have raised regarding issues including, but not limited to, race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. Making the case that libertarians have these obligations irrespective of their * Grant Babcock ([email protected]) is an independent scholar. My thanks to Robert Churchill, Matthew McCaffrey, Ross Kenyon, and two anonymous referees for their help and encouragement. The paper’s merits are largely a result of their influence; any remaining errors are my own. CITATION INFORMATION FOR THIS ARTICLE: Grant Babcock. 2012. “Libertarianism, Feminism, and Nonviolent Action: A Synthesis.” Libertarian Papers. 4 (2): 119-138. ONLINE AT: libertarianpapers.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Forestalling, Positive Obligations and the Lockean and Blockian Provisos: Rejoinder to Stephan Kinsella*
    Ekonomia — Wroclaw Economic Review 22/3 (2016) Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis No 3732 DOI: 10.19195/2084-4093.22.3.2 Walter E. Block Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics [email protected] Joseph A. Butt S.J. College of Business Loyola University New Orleans Forestalling, Positive Obligations and the Lockean and Blockian Provisos: Rejoinder to Stephan Kinsella* JEL Classification: K19 Keywords: forestalling, positive obligations, Lockean proviso, Blockian proviso Abstract Forestalling, Positive Obligations and the Lockean and Blockian Provisos: Rejoinder to Stephan Kinsella The Blockian proviso mandates that no one precludes or forestalls anyone else in their land home- steading patterns such that they prevent them from homesteading virgin encircled land. Kinsella (2007, 2009A) takes issue with this position and likens it to the properly denigrated Lockean pro- viso. The present paper is an attempt to distinguish the two provisos one from the other, and defend the former from Kinsella’s critiques. What is the Lockean proviso? Let us allow “da man” to speak for himself on this issue. According to Locke (1689, emphasis added): “Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.
    [Show full text]
  • Judith Jarvis Thomson on Abortion; a Libertarian Perspective
    DePaul Journal of Health Care Law Volume 19 Issue 1 Fall 2017 Article 3 April 2018 Judith Jarvis Thomson on Abortion; a Libertarian Perspective Walter E. Block Loyola University New Orleans, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jhcl Part of the Health Law and Policy Commons Recommended Citation Walter E. Block, Judith Jarvis Thomson on Abortion; a Libertarian Perspective, 19 DePaul J. Health Care L. (2018) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jhcl/vol19/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Journal of Health Care Law by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Judith Jarvis Thomson on abortion; a libertarian perspective1 I. Introduction Abortion is one of the most vexing issues faced by society. On the one hand, there are those who favor the pro-choice position. In their view, the woman, and she alone (along with the advice of her doctor – but the final decision must be hers), should be able to legally determine on what basis, and whether, her pregnancy should be conducted. She should be as free to end her pregnancy at any stage of the development of her fetus, or give birth to it after the usual term of nine months. On the other hand, there are those who favor what is called the pro-life position. In this perspective, the fetus, from the moment of conception, is a full rights-bearing human being.
    [Show full text]
  • Law and Economics ECON B330-001 Fall 2021 (August 23 – December 17)
    Law and Economics ECON B330-001 Fall 2021 (August 23 – December 17) Class hours: Monday, Wednesday, Friday from 12:30-1:20 p.m. Course Location: MI 208 Instructor: Dr. Walter E. Block Office Location: Miller Hall 318 Phone: (504) 864-7934 Email: [email protected] Office hours: Wednesday: 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. In addition to these formal office hours, I will be available most days of the week. If by odd chance none of these hours are convenient, a mutually agreeable appointment can always be made. I am very available for student consultation and willing to give as much time as is needed for questions, discussion, dialogue. Terms of Use A student's continued enrollment in this course signifies acknowledgment of and agreement with the statements, disclaimers, policies, and procedures outlined within this syllabus and elsewhere in the Canvas environment. This Syllabus is a dynamic document. Elements of the course structure (e.g., dates and topics covered, but not policies) may be changed at the discretion of the professor. College of Business Mission Statement The mission of the Loyola College of Business is to educate and empower ethical innovators who work with and for others to solve local and global problems. We teach conceptual, technical, and professional skills through engaging experiences that leverage New Orleans’ community and creative spirit. Course Description This course is an economic analysis used to consider the effects of legal rules upon people’s actions. Alternative rules are considered, with particular attention paid to the differing effects each is likely to have on the structure of incentives, and thus on human actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarian Feminism: Can This Marriage Be Saved? Roderick Long Charles Johnson 27 December 2004
    Libertarian Feminism: Can This Marriage Be Saved? Roderick Long Charles Johnson 27 December 2004 Let's start with what this essay will do, and what it will not. We are both convinced of, and this essay will take more or less for granted, that the political traditions of libertarianism and feminism are both in the main correct, insightful, and of the first importance in any struggle to build a just, free, and compassionate society. We do not intend to try to justify the import of either tradition on the other's terms, nor prove the correctness or insightfulness of the non- aggression principle, the libertarian critique of state coercion, the reality and pervasiveness of male violence and discrimination against women, or the feminist critique of patriarchy. Those are important conversations to have, but we won't have them here; they are better found in the foundational works that have already been written within the feminist and libertarian traditions. The aim here is not to set down doctrine or refute heresy; it's to get clear on how to reconcile commitments to both libertarianism and feminism—although in reconciling them we may remove some of the reasons that people have had for resisting libertarian or feminist conclusions. Libertarianism and feminism, when they have encountered each other, have most often taken each other for polar opposites. Many 20th century libertarians have dismissed or attacked feminism—when they have addressed it at all—as just another wing of Left-wing statism; many feminists have dismissed or attacked libertarianism—when they have addressed it at all—as either Angry White Male reaction or an extreme faction of the ideology of the liberal capitalist state.
    [Show full text]
  • A Response to the Libertarian Critics of Open-Borders Libertarianism
    LINCOLN MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW __________________________________ VOLUME 4 FALL 2016 ISSUE 1 ____________________________________ A RESPONSE TO THE LIBERTARIAN CRITICS OF OPEN-BORDERS LIBERTARIANISM Walter E. Block, Ph.D. Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business I. INTRODUCTION Libertarians may be unique in many regards, but their views on immigration do not qualify. They are as divided as is the rest of the population on this issue. Some favor open borders, and others oppose such a legal milieu. The present paper may be placed in the former category. It will outline both sides of this debate in sections II and III. Section IV is devoted to some additional arrows in the quiver of the closed border libertarians, and to a refutation of them. We conclude in section V. A RESPONSE TO THE LIBERTARIAN CRITICS OF OPEN-BORDERS LIBERTARIANISM 143 II. ANTI OPEN BORDERS The libertarian opposition to free immigration is straightforward and even elegant.1 It notes, first, a curious bifurcation in international economic relations. In the case of both trade and investment, there must necessarily be two2 parties who agree to the commercial interaction. In the former case, there must be an importer and an exporter; both are necessary. Without the consent of both parties, the transaction cannot take place. A similar situation arises concerning foreign investment. The entrepreneur who wishes to set up shop abroad must obtain the willing acquiescence of the domestic partner for the purchase of land and raw materials. And the same occurs with financial transactions that take place across 1 Peter Brimelow, ALIEN NATION: COMMON SENSE ABOUT AMERICA’S IMMIGRATION DISASTER (1995); Jesús Huerta De Soto, A Libertarian Theory of Free Immigration, 13 J.
    [Show full text]
  • White, Right and Libertarian
    WHITE, RIGHT, AND LIBERTARIAN Chase Rachels Copyright © 2018 Christopher Chase Rachels All rights reserved. ISBN-13: 978-1979796521 ISBN-10: 1979796521 CONTENTS Foreword by Hans-Hermann Hoppe ...............................v Chapter I: What Anarcho-Capitalism Is ............................1 Chapter II: The Libertarian Case Against Open Borders ............11 Chapter III: For A “Libertarian Alt-Right” .........................35 Suggestions For Further Reading ..................................79 Appendix: Clearing Up The Hoppe Foreword Controversy ..........87 iii FOREWORD The social theory sailing nowadays under the label “Austro-Liber- tarianism” has a long and prominent history going back many centuries, culminating during the second half of the 20th century in the work of Murray N. Rothbard, and continued today by his various intellectual disciples and students (including myself ). The theory provides a simple, argumentatively irrefutable (without running into contradictions) answer to one of the most important questions in the entire field of the social sciences: How can human beings, “real persons,” having to act in a “real world” characterized by the scarcity of all sorts of physical things, interact with each other, conceivably from the beginning of mankind until the end of human history, peacefully, i.e., without physically clash- ing with one another in a contest or fight concerning the control of one and the same given thing? Put briefly, the answer is this: Absent a perfect harmony of all inter- ests, clashes regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual or group of individuals. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, without you and I ever clashing.
    [Show full text]
  • Createspace Word Templates
    MOLINARI REVIEW Molinari Review 1, No. 2 (Fall 2019) © The Molinari Institute 2019 All content in this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Published by: The Molinari Institute 402 Martin Avenue Auburn, Alabama 36830 U.S.A. ISBN: 978-1-947236-00-4 MOLINARI REVIEW The Molinari Review is a peer-reviewed, open-access, print-on-demand, interdiscipli- nary journal of libertarian research. We publish scholarship, sympathetic or critical, in and/or on the libertarian tradition, broadly understood as including classical liberalism, individualist anarchism, social anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho- communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcha-feminism, panarchism, voluntaryism, mu- tualism, agorism, distributism, bleeding-heart libertarianism, Austrianism, Georgism, public choice, and beyond – essentially, everything from Emma Goldman to Ayn Rand, C. L. R. James to F. A. Hayek, Alexis de Tocqueville to Michel Foucault. (We see exciting affiliations among these strands of the libertarian tradition; but you don’t have to agree with us about that to publish in our pages.) Disciplines in which we seek to publish include philosophy, political science, eco- nomics, history, sociology, psychology, anthropology, theology, ecology, literature, and law. We aim to enhance the visibility of libertarian scholarship, to expand the boundaries of traditional libertarian discussion, and to provide a home for cutting- edge research in the theory and practice of human liberty. INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS Submissions should be sent by email to Roderick T. Long at [email protected] as Word .doc or .docx files, prepared for blind review (i.e. all author information re- moved), and accompanied by an abstract of around 150 words as a guide for referees.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society N
    LEGISLATION AND THE DISCOVERY OF LAW IN A FREE SOCIETY N. Stephan Kinsella* ______________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .......................................................134 II. Centralized and Decentralized Legal Systems ................135 A. Civil Law and Common Law..........................135 B. Civil Law, Rationalism, and Libertarianism......... 137 III. Law, Legislation, and Liberty................................. 140 A. Anarcho-Capitalism.....................................140 B. Certainty..................................................141 1. Certainty, the Rule of Law, and Legislation 141 2. Decentralized Law-Finding Systems......... 144 a. Limits of Courts’ Decisions: Jurisdiction, Scope of Decision, and Precedent......................144 b. Government Courts: Extra-Market Powers and Disguised Legislation............ 146 3. Civil Codes......................................148 a. The “Special” Status of a Civil Code 148 b. Diluting Effect of Special Statutes.............................149 * N. Stephan Kinsella, JD, LL.M., practices computer software and hardware patent law with Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, in Philadelphia, and is licensed to practice in Louisiana, Texas, and Pennsylvania, and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In accordance with the author’s request, the footnote and citation style used in this article is primarily consistent with law review format. The author would like to thank Professor Saúl Litvinoff and Jack Criss, Jr. for helpful comments
    [Show full text]
  • A Spontaneous Order
    Digital Proofer A Spontaneous Order: A Spontaneous Order Authored by Christopher Chase ... 6.0" x 9.0" (15.24 x 22.86 cm) The Capitalist Case Black & White on White paper 292 pages For A Stateless Society ISBN-13: 9781512117271 ISBN-10: 1512117277 Please carefully review your Digital Proof download for formatting, grammar, and design issues that may need to be corrected. We recommend that you review your book three times, with each time focusing on a different aspect. Check the format, including headers, footers, page 1 numbers, spacing, table of contents, and index. 2 Review any images or graphics and captions if applicable. 3 Read the book for grammatical errors and typos. Once you are satisfied with your review, you can approve your proof and move forward to the next step in the publishing process. To print this proof we recommend that you scale the PDF to fit the size of your printer paper. CHASE RACHELS DEDICATION Copyright © 2015 Christopher Chase Rachels All rights reserved. ISBN-13: 978-1512117271 ISBN-10: 1512117277 This work is dedicated to my son, Micha Rachels. May he grow up with a Cover Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0 free spirit, critical mind, and warm heart. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CONTENTS I would like to first and foremost thank my wife, Michelle Ferris, Foreword … 6 for standing by my side as an active participant in the fight against tyranny. Her loving encouragement and support enabled me to see this project to its Introduction … 11 end. Stephan Kinsella’s mentorship was likewise invaluable in its relation to the precision and rigor of this book.
    [Show full text]