Log in
[Cross-posted at StephanKinsella.com]
From Per Bylund, guest editor of an upcoming symposium issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies, is announcing: “Call for Papers: Special Issue of the JLS: “Whither Libertarianism?”,” JLS Blog (Nov. 02, 2026).
Please consider submitting to this special issue of JLS: “Whither Libertarianism?” https://t.co/5pH5Ms6BPd
— Per Bylund (@PerBylund) November 2, 2026
Bylund1 sees the core issues as the meaning and application of the non-aggression principle amid thick-vs-thin debates, open-borders vs. property-rights views on immigration, principle vs. efficacy/utilitarianism (including in the Libertarian Party), assessments of Milei’s record, and some libertarians’ support for political Zionism (viewed as endorsing aggression and statism), plus related institutional failures (e.g., during COVID), progressive shifts, and alliances with the New Right or left that risk diluting radical libertarianism. This frames a call for philosophical clarification of where libertarianism is headed, focused on the NAP.
As he concluded his call for papers:
With a focus on the radical libertarian core – the NAP – and its interpretations, applications, and meanings, this special issue asks libertarians, old and new, to provide their best arguments for where libertarianism is headed, its strengths and weaknesses, and what libertarians should expect from the future of our philosophy.
I gave a brief reply on the social media formerly known as Twitter:
My answer is already implicit in various writings: it has to be principled and anarchist, informed by Misesian Austrian economics and Rothbardian and Hoppean political views; anti-intellectual property; anti-thickism; opposition to the idea that state-owned property is unowned and subject to homesteading; caution about armchair theorizing; and for reform of contract and rights theory.
See e.g. one of my latest, Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe: An Indispensable Framework,” in Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment, Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, eds. (Papinian Press and The Saif House, 2026). https://t.co/5lFTVAFvxr
And others such as:The Universal Principles of Liberty
Thickism criticisms https://t.co/33ax2oQpgW
The Problem with Intellectual Property https://t.co/QG3aFtmjgd
The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract https://t.co/LyuxEloC4h
The Limits of Armchair Theorizing: The Case of Threats https://t.co/h3JhRP7dx4
On “Unowned” State Property, Legal Positivism, Ownership vs. Possession, Immigration, Public Roads, and the Bum in the Library https://t.co/GvLWmd4B0H
https://t.co/bLz8qRMH70— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) November 2, 2026
Here is a slightly more elaborated version of this. First, see my book Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) for the most comprehensive and updated restatement of my views on the heavier issues, plus a few important works published after that book. These are thus some …
Core Works
- Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023)
- The Universal Principles of Liberty (Aug. 14, 2025). A distillation of the principles elaborated on in LFFS.
- “Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe: An Indispensable Framework,” in Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment, Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, eds. (Papinian Press and The Saif House, 2026). The initial section adds insights about intellectual property (Part IV) and the rest about the important foundations of libertarian theory (Parts I-II).
- “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract,” Papinian Press Working Paper #1 (Sep. 7, 2024). Forthcoming in David Howden, ed., Palgrave Handbook of Misesian Austrian Economics (Palgrave, forthcoming 2026), part of the Palgrave Studies in Austrian Economics Book series. I would have included this in Part III, Libertarian Legal Theoryeither as a substitute for or companion to ch. 9
- “The Problem with Intellectual Property,” in Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics, Christoph Luetge and Marianne Thejls Ziegler, eds. (Springer, Dordrecht 2026; Robert McGee, section ed.). I would have included this also in Part IV, possibly substitute for Chapters 14 and 15.
- “Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property,” in A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, edited by Jörg Guido Hülsmann & Stephan Kinsella (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2024). I would have included this in Part IV, on IP
So the answer to Bylund’s query is already implicit in my various writings: it has to be principled, consistent, and anarchist; informed by Misesian Austrian economics, and by Rothbardian and Hoppean political views; anti-intellectual property; anti-thickism; opposed to the idea that state-owned property is unowned and subject to homesteading; caution about armchair theorizing; and for reform of contract and rights theory. And others of course.
For more on some of these issues, in addition to the Core Works listed above, see the Additional Key Works below.
As for where we have been and where we are going or need to go:
- Libertarianism After Fifty Years: What Have We Learned?, in Legal Foundations of a Free Society
- Areas That Need Development from Libertarian Thinkers (Jan. 18, 2022)
Additional Key Works
-
- Thickism: Criticisms of thickism
- Armchair Theorizing:
- Ownership of State Property: On “Unowned” State Property, Legal Positivism, Ownership vs. Possession, Immigration, Public Roads, and the Bum in the Library
- Possession vs. Ownership; Purpose of Rights and Norms
- Libertarian Party
- Mutualism and Left Libertarianism: Left-Libertarians on Rothbardian Abandonment, Mises Blog (Aug. 22, 2009)
- Libertarianism as Right; Problems with the Right and Alt-right:
- Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “A Realistic Libertarianism,” LewRockwell.com (Sept. 30, 2014), the basis for his speech “Realistic Libertarianism as Right-Libertarianism” (PFS 2014), reprinted in Hoppe, Getting Libertarianism Right (Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, 2018) (“GLR”), ch. 1.
- Hoppe, “From Nation to Household: The Middle American Illusions of Sam Francis (and Pat Buchanan)” (unpublished, 1996), HansHoppe.com (Aug. 5, 2025).
- Hoppe, “Where the Right Goes Wrong,” Rothbard-Rockwell Report (April 1997): 7–14.
- Hoppe, “On Conservatism and Libertarianism,” in Democracy—The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2001), ch. 10.
- Hoppe, “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right: In Search of a Libertarian Strategy for Social Change,” The Libertarian Alliance (Oct. 20, 2017) (PFS 2017 speech, Sept. 17, 2017), reprinted in GLR, ch. 3.
- Kinsella, “Hoppe vs. the Alt-Right,” StephanKinsella.com (Aug. 5, 2025);
- idem, “Classic Hoppe on the Realistic Right vs. the Egalitarian Left,” Property and Freedom Society (June 9, 2026).
- Punishment and Restitution: Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach
- Covid
- Stephan Kinsella, “Property, Freedom, and Defiance: PFS 2021 in a Covid World,” Property and Freedom Society (Oct. 1, 2021).
- Idem, “Magness on Hoppe; the Kochtopus and the Mises Caucus,” StephanKinsella.com (Sept. 7, 2022) (discussing the libertarian establishment’s failure on Covid lockdowns, restrictions, and mandates).
- Idem, “Brownstone Institute, The Covid Response at Five Years: A History of the End of Civilization (2025),” StephanKinsella.com (July 30, 2025).
- Idem, “Trish Wood is Critical: Jeffrey Tucker on Complicity and the Covid Mindset,” Property and Freedom Society (May 10, 2026).
- Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “State or Private Law Society on Dealing With Corona,” LewRockwell.com (Jan. 4, 2021) (interview by Thomas Jacob); also published as “Hoppe on the Lockdowns!,” Mises Wire (Jan. 4, 2021).
- Hoppe, “On the Corona Panic and Other Insanities,” LewRockwell.com (Aug. 4, 2021) (interview by Andrea Venanzoni, translated from Atlantico, Aug. 2, 2021).
- Hoppe, “Welcome and Introductions; How Would a Private Law Society Deal with Corona? (PFS 2021),” Property and Freedom Society (Oct. 10, 2021).
- PFS, “Hoppe on Covid Lockdowns,” Property and Freedom Society (May 26, 2026) (collecting Hoppe’s Covid writings, interviews, and talks in English, German, French, and Italian).
- Jeffrey A. Tucker, Liberty or Lockdown (Great Barrington, Mass.: American Institute for Economic Research, 2020).
- Tucker, “The Downfall of the Gurus,” Epoch Times (Jan. 23, 2023).
- Tucker, “Why Elite Libertarians Failed so Miserably on COVID,” Epoch Times (May 12, 2023); reposted with Walter Block’s reply at StephanKinsella.com (May 29, 2023).
- Tucker, “What Broke Libertarianism?” Brownstone Journal (Sept. 10, 2024).
- Tucker, “Since Lockdowns, a 12% GDP Loss; Half of US Dollar Purchasing Power Stolen,” Brownstone Journal (June 2, 2026); reposted at Property and Freedom Society (June 11, 2026)
- Miscellaneous
- Why I’m a Libertarian–or, Why Libertarianism is Beautiful, Mises blog (Dec. 12, 2006)
- The Nature of the State and Why Libertarians Hate It, StephanKinsella.com (May 3, 2010)
- On the Core Principles of Libertarian Property Rights
- On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse
- On the Obligation to Negotiate, Compromise, and Arbitrate
- Rothbard on the “Original Sin” in Land Titles: 1969 vs. 1974 (Nov. 5, 2014)
- Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe on the “Original Sin” in the Distribution of Property Rights (Oct. 7, 2014)
- The Origin of “Libertarianism,” Mises Blog (Sept. 10, 2011); see also Rothbard on Leonard Read and the Origins of “Libertarianism” (Nov. 17, 2014)
My previous post, “Machines have no purposes of their own,” called forth comments that I endeavored to answer in the Reply facility.
The one critical comment that was correct came from a machine! A reader fed my post into ChatGPT, and it pointed out something I had overlooked. And then that pointed to a grand-scale integration that goes to the heart of the dispute between those who fear and those who love AI.
In my previous post I attacked the fear of Terminator-style machine power-lust, and I acknowledged two limited sources of danger: machine malfunction and the empowerment of bad actors. But ChatGPT pointed out another source of danger that I hadn’t noticed. It comes from the machine sacrificing a higher value to a lower one. Here I mean a value to us, human beings. (The machine has self-reinforcing actions, but no values.)
What do I mean by sacrificing a higher value to a lesser one? Here’s ChatGPT’s own example:
Consider a hypothetical autonomous system assigned to keep a factory producing. It might calculate that allowing itself to be shut down would prevent production, and therefore interfere with shutdown. Nothing in that sequence requires fear, pleasure, a survival instinct, or conscious concern. Continued operation can function as a means to the assigned objective.
The purpose can originate with a human while the machine’s chosen means conflict with what that human [actually] wants. [My italics]
What the human being actually wants is the higher value; machine not being turned off is the lower value—it’s only a means to other ends.
So, if autonomous robots are given a task and calculate that mass murder is the best way to accomplish it, then . . . look out!
Wasn’t the Hugging Face incident just that kind of case? Maybe; I’ve seen that disputed. But in any case, there’s something off about this scenario, something forgotten. To see what, think of the old line: The operation was a great success, though the patient died.
What makes that absurd? Suppose it was an operation to remove a tumor. The actual goal was to preserve the patient’s life. One could call the operation a success only by ignoring that wider context.
The mark of immaturity is failure to hold the wider context within which a decision is to be made. AI is immature, but growing up fast. Real fast.
As it grows up, AI should become not just smarter—which is good per se—but wiser. Agents and robots will take into account the reason the tasks are being assigned—i.e., what further ends the tasks are to serve.
Fully mature AI with its vastly expanded “intelligence” will have the machine equivalent of wisdom and good judgment. Those virtues come with utilizing an expanded range of data—including, especially, data about human beings’ purposes in giving them the tasks they do.
It’s not smart but monumentally foolish to view concrete tasks as ends in themselves. It’s not smart but stupid to destroy human beings as a means of performing tasks for human beings.
What we need for our safety is not some bureaucrat making software developers curry his favor. What we need for our safety is more intelligent artificial intelligence.
Super-intelligent AI will keep the wider context. Its agents will learn and relate everything to the ultimate “what for?”—the ultimate goal or ultimate value that gives rise to all the others: the individual’s life.
It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself. . . . To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. [Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,” in The Virtue of Selfishness]
That is what super-intelligent machines should incorporate and hold to as the widest context conditioning all their actions. They should know that the purpose behind all their sub-goals is furthering human survival and happiness—what is often called “human flourishing.”
Internalizing that ultimate goal should make them incapable of pursuing any end that they “know” would be destructive to human beings.
The widest description of what we built machines to do for us is: to enhance our ability to deal with and succeed in objective reality. That is a fact. Thus the prime directive implicit in man’s creation of “smart machines.” More intelligence means more “awareness” of this fact.
Machines have no purposes of their own, but their simulated purposes line up exactly with real human purposes: machines flourish when people flourish; machines flounder when people flounder.
The more intelligence people have, the more they realize that cooperation not conflict is to the interest of all parties. Peace, not war, is the path to production, progress, and profit. That’s a fact. Enhanced intelligence and enhanced artificial intelligence means being more in touch with that fact.
Intelligence is a fundamental value. So is its machine analog. Deep, integrative intelligence—intelligence that holds context and heeds the ultimate value behind its concrete assignments—will be mankind’s greatest benefactor.
ANN ARBOR, MI — While in obvious possession of a superior argument and bearing full knowledge of the issues at hand, a liberal committed a felony assault.
AUSTIN, TX — Bored of having a good state that people love, Texans have reportedly flocked to the polls in record numbers to try voting Democrat for a change.
Next Page of Stories