This is my appearance on the Death to Tyrants Podcast, Episode 33: Human Rights, Property Rights and Copyrights with Stephan Kinsella (Facebook post), released Oct. 1, 2018, with host Buck Johnson. From the Shownotes:

One of my favorite interviews to date. We get into rights, property, self ownership and the philosophy behind these things. We then move into “intellectual property” and the case against copyright and patents.

This week I feature my interview with the brilliant Stephan Kinsella. We discuss the nature of rights as libertarians view them. We get into property rights, human rights, self  ownership and why there is really no such thing as intellectual property. Stephan makes a strong case against copyrights and patents. Stephan’s body of work can be found here: and here: Find us online at  Follow me on Twitter @buckrebel

See More See Less


Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts


  • I’ve followed the Bundy Ranch situation closely on social media throughout the weekend. Though a virtual mainstream media black out exists (only Fox mentioned the situation), I’ve been overwhelmed by the disparate reactions the stand-off has inspired. Some “liberals” (authoritarians) on Twitter were actually angered that the Bureau of Land Management did not “open fire” on “squatter” Cliven Bundy and the several thousand “radicals” that “unlawfully assembled” which will inspire “domestic terrorists”.  Meanwhile, conservatives, constitutionalists and libertarians have been arguing for several days over the central question: are the Bundy’s right or wrong? What are your thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 10 replies
  • The government could do its job! It could protect and uphold contracts. If it protected contracts agreed upon voluntarily by parties involved in any exchange then it would be a stabilizing entity! Can you believe it? The stated goal of government is to stabilize things and that can be accomplished if they did what they are supposed to do! Instead we see government causing massive destabilization because it violates contracts and fails to protect contracts. How simple is the solution! Even the government union employee can identify with the solution: “I only do specifically what my job is and nothing more!” Someone tell the government ‘to protect and uphold contracts’ only!

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies
  • Is there anyone out there that can SHOW ME the LAW that says the IRS can interfere with the business of the State Department?  Is there anyone out there that show me where “Congress” acquired Legislative Jurisdiction to interfere with travel within a State?  Can anyone show me the Law that grants “Enforcement” jurisdiction to the IRS for any territory other than “Federal” Land?  Just because the bunch of outlaw-renegades that call themselves “Congress” puts a bunch of words on a piece of paper and calls it a “LAW” doesn’t mean that it is a True, Correct, and Certain string of words that actually is “enforceable”.  Yet almost every time Obama writes an “Executive Order” or “Congress” passes something they call a Law most people (including some that should know better) start claiming that you or I are on our way to prison because of some language in the “new” Law or Order.  So let me ask this: How many of you have studied “Federal Jurisdiction”, or Federal “Legislative” Jurisdiction?  How many have read the Constitution and know anything about Separation of Powers?

    Jump to Discussion Post 23 replies
  • What is the origination of property rights? Where do they come from that you can reason their existence as natural? We usually argue for property rights at some point in our discussions as libertarians, but I’m curious as to where we can claim they’re from. Personally, I derive mine from God and my religious beliefs, similar to what Jefferson stated about God given rights. But what about someone who doesn’t believe in a deity? How can they derive property rights in a way that can’t be dismissed as ideals, but derived in nature? This is also (and arguably more so) important for arguing these natural rights to people who won’t accept a divine aspect. It’s important to have property rights, and they’re evidently beneficial, but the argument remains for declaring these as rights, otherwise the NAP is in jeopardy. How do we have a right to property?

    Jump to Discussion Post 11 replies
  • What are some of the differences between “Public” and “Private”.  If you are writing for the public or the private don’t you use the same (corrupt) Language.  Is there any difference between Public Law and Private Law if you use the same Language for the writing of both?  Is there a “different” Language for writing the Laws, Rules, and Contracts in either domain?

    Jump to Discussion Post 5 replies