Mises and Mont Pèlerin 1947

Although Mises was not an anarchist, he was clearly unwavering in principle concerning laissez-faire—he was better than "the rest." From Bruce Caldwell's Mont Pèlerin 1947:

General discussion waited until the evening session [of "Free Enterprise or Competitive Order"—session 1]. That event might have been retitled “free enterprise versus the competitive order,” or more simply “Mises versus the rest,” though both Hazlitt and Miller made brief comments in support of Mises’s positions, and “the rest” did not always agree with one another. Mises had some justification to feel a little prickly. After all, in a session posing a choice between free enterprise and a competitive order, it might have been fitting to have had among the opening speakers at least one person who was willing to defend the former. In any event, Mises’s defense of laissez - faire was predictably direct and pithy: most of the problems that had been identified had government actions as their root cause, so their solution was to get it out of the way. For most of those attending the conference, this simple advice was unsatisfactory. People wanted to discuss alternative policies, to find out which ones might best cohere with a liberal vision, not the reasons why policies were unnecessary. Both Hayek and Robbins tried to intervene in various ways, mostly to clarify the various positions under discussion, but at times things got testy. This was probably the session at which Mises “stood up, announced to the assembly ‘You’re all a bunch of socialists,’ and stomped out of the room," though that is not recorded in the minutes. (p. 47)

The Vile Creature Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella and I have a contentious past, as he is anti-IP while I was at one time, due to having taken courses from Andrew J. Galambos, strongly pro-IP, even as a moral issue. My position has moderated since then as I have largely adopted a consequentialist and market-based approach to morality.

Last October (2024), Kinsella reached out to me on Facebook Messenger: "you still a libertarian?" I responded that I am, although by his criteria I am not as he believes pro-IP is a disqualifier. In the course of a few back and forths he apologized for some of his past behavior towards me: "If I was rude to you in the past, I apologize I could be a prick sometimes". The conversation petered out until last Monday (3/31/2025) when I stumbled on an article by him about attempting to have a bust of Ludwig von Mises installed in the courtyard of the University of Vienna. I was complimentary to him about his effort to honor Mises in this way although it came to naught.

Then, yesterday (4/3/2025), out of the blue, he started up a conversation about me "chatting" with him on his podcast about "Your [my] thoughts on IPP by contract things like that we just discuss it". I was inclined to accept as he seemed genuinely interested in a dialog. He followed up by sending me a link to a discussion he had with Sheldon Richman saying to me "you are mentioned". And there, at the bottom of the page I found a link to a post where he criticized my talk on Galambos's ideas at the 2012 Austrian Scholars Conference (ASC) in the most insulting and disrespectful manner possible. He even criticized the Mises Institute for having the temerity to allow an opposing view to be aired after they had "previously awarded me [Kinsella] the O.P. Alford III Prize for Against Intellectual Property."

At that point I realized I had been set up. This snake in the grass was lulling me into a false sense of security, pretending to be interested in a civil exchange of ideas while most likely planning a non-stop, strawman-laden takedown. I am embarrassed that my gullibility made me fall for Kinsella's overtures, but happy that I have avoided what would surely have been an unrelenting attack.

After I told him that I had reversed my decision and was uninterested in joining him on his podcast or any other platform, I received a venomous reply that confirmed my suspicions:

no skin off my back. 

you guys need to lighten the fuck up though

but to be clear--it's not my fault you are confused, or that I am honest in assessing your confusion. It's Galambos's, and yours. Not mine. I've done all I can do to clarify this area, and then to have the temerity to offer to you a discussion to help clear things up for you. This is the problem wtih you people--too fucking proud. No humlility.

Kinsella lets me know that rather than a discussion, I was in for a lecture "to help clear things up for [me]." While he knows little of Galambos's work and even less of what I think of Galambos's work, he wants to end my confusion. Then, after having said in the above-referenced post that the Mises Institute should not have given me a platform for views that were opposed to his he claims that I, who travelled to that conference in 2012 fully expecting he would be there to engage me in discussion or debate, am the one lacking in humility. The fact is that I went there more to expose the participants to a different point of view than to defend it, and IP is not an issue that has concerned me much since that conference.

Kinsella is a person lacking in intellectual depth and the ability to be generous in the reading or evaluation of the work of others. For example, the idea that natural rights support any kind of argument is just ridiculous and is rejected by serious thinkers like Mises, Hayek, and Popper, among others. And to presume that someone else, about whom he knows almost nothing, is to be lectured about their confusion simply oozes arrogance. He is incapable of entertaining the thought that it is not confusion but genuine disagreement with his so-called arguments. The fact is, especially in my case, he has absolutely no idea where any disagreement might lie.

I don't worry a bit that Kinsella's views might succeed, as I think they will be swept away by market forces, as will Galambos's if they do not bestow benefits on consumers—arguments are of no consequence in such a situation. We can only offer up our conjectures about how civilization might be improved and hope that our fellows find some value in them. There is a great quote from Albrecht Dürer that I found in Popper's work:

But I shall let the little I have learnt go forth into the day in order that someone better than I may guess the truth, and in his work may prove and rebuke my error. At this I shall rejoice that I was yet a means whereby this truth has come to light.

That is true humility.