Intellectual Property : In Kinsella's Words

The Beginning

The I.P. debate used to be like any other topic, persons disagreed but treated each-other with respect, listened, and were very empathetic towards the views of others. The anti-I.P. arguments were relatively logical, and I agreed on numerous occasions.

Not the Source?

Then Stefan Kinsella's book appeared on the scene. On the surface, it's an extremely biased book against I.P., and even intellectually dishonest, which resulted in a flood of fallacies and misinformation. However that alone didn't seem enough to turn the I.P. debate into a full on flame war.

The Real Source

For the most part, I was bewildered how the debate shifted from friendly and respectful, to extremist, intense, and hateful to the point even the most tyrannical statists receive more respect. On 4-17-2012 I was doing some more research and stumbled across something unexpectedly revolting. In a moment, I understood the reason why the I.P. debate dissolved into such a chaotic nightmare.

Stefan Kinsella is not only the source of the anti-I.P. crowd's bad material, but also the source of the flame war as well.

Dirty Laundry

In Stefan Kinsella's own words:

Source / Mirror

  • It’s Engels, not Engles, genius.
  • mercantilist, genius
  • how horrible! competition!
  • It’s “seethes,” you illiterate.
  • Well it may be a coincidence that you are so wrong, and that you are (obviously) stupid. But I dunno, I’ve seen this correlation many times.
  • Then he didn’t have the use of the stallion while it was gone. There was a conflict. Sort of like if A rapes B while she is passed out after a drunken party, and the next morning B notices the telltale signs, even though she didn’t remember it–she was raped. Hellooooo.
  • Nonsens. If I sell you a copy I printed of Dickens’ Great Expectations or Obama’s latest kiddie book, that is not fraud–I am not misrepresenting what you are buying.
  • Nonsense. Only a randroid can think this.
  • Same reason Rand talked about initiation of PHYSICAL FORCE. HELLOOOOOOOOO
  • All nonsense involves nonsense. now what.
  • “Frankly,” Jim, you are talking like a total amateur. You have no idea what you are talking about. You have no argument at all except “duh duh labor is scarce and some people’s be gettin’ rich”. Nice political theory you got there.


  • This stupid nonserious gadfly move is old–you guys get PWNed every time. Watch:
  • Anyway, enjoy your complete PWNage.
  • haha. I have written more on IP policy than anyone I know of. I have taken down every argument for IP I have ever heard. Repeatedly. I keep hearing hte same old stuff over again. And usually it does not even amount to an “argument,” it’s just an incoherent, amateur, confused mishmash of nonsense.
  • hahah, so you trust the state to come in and allow some competition, not others, regulate it, channel it productively. hahahahahhahah
  • You guys are so tiresome and dishonest. You keep question-begging. You think if you just keep shoting the word STOLEN that proves there was property rights in the first place. Question-begging.


  • Do you have comprehension problems? Or general psychological ones? (as your bizarre castigation of your grandma and your family's traditions would indicate)
  • … it's obvious you have a plurality of problems—mental, ethical, psychological, familial. You are just one messed up sad sack star trek geek aren't you?

I’d say that almost any invention that comes will come eventually–maybe even sooner, absent the patent system, absent the state. In my experience, this view is almost universal among inventors and engineers.

I challenge you to look this up yourself; this is only a fraction of the nonsense I've seen. This is supposed to be a reliable source of information?

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License