Kinsella, N. Stephan. Against Intellectual Property
Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008.

Stephan Kinsella’s Against Intellectual Property is one of those books that makes you wonder why you ever thought copyright and patents made sense in the first place. It’s a short, no-nonsense attack on the entire idea of intellectual property (IP), and it doesn’t just poke holes in the arguments for it—it shreds them.

Most people, even hardcore free-market types, assume IP is just part of capitalism. It protects creators, rewards innovation, and keeps the economy moving, right? Kinsella’s answer is a firm no. IP, he argues, isn’t about protecting property at all. It’s just another government-backed monopoly that benefits the already powerful and gets in the way of real innovation.

The book’s main argument is simple but powerful: property rights exist to deal with scarcity. Land, food, and cars are scarce—if one person takes them, someone else goes without. But ideas? Ideas aren’t scarce at all. If I copy your invention or your book, I haven’t taken anything from you—you still have it. As Kinsella puts it:

[I]deas are not scarce. If I invent a technique for harvesting cotton, your harvesting cotton in this way would not take away the technique from me. I still have my technique (as well as my cotton). Your use does not exclude my use; we could both use my technique to harvest cotton. There is no economic scarcity, and no possibility of conflict over the use of a scarce resource. Thus, there is no need for exclusivity. (p. 32)

Copyright and patents, he argues, create artificial scarcity where none actually exists. They allow people to claim ownership over ideas and patterns, which means they can control what others do with their own property. If I own a printing press and some blank paper, I should be able to print whatever I like on it—including a copy of your book. But copyright says I can’t. Why? Because the government has given you the exclusive right to control that idea.

A common defence of IP is that without it, people wouldn’t bother to create new books, music, inventions, or films. Why spend years writing a novel if someone else can just copy it the moment it’s published? Kinsella calls this out as nonsense. First, history doesn’t back it up. Shakespeare, Mozart, and many of the great scientists and inventors of the past worked without IP protection. Did people just stop writing music before copyright existed? Hardly.

Second, as Kinsella explains, there are plenty of ways to make money from innovation without needing a government-enforced monopoly. First-mover advantage, trade secrets, brand reputation, and voluntary contracts all work just fine. In fact, he argues that IP laws actually slow down innovation by making it harder for people to build on existing ideas:

Perhaps there would even be more innovation if there were no patent laws; maybe more money for research and development (R&D) would be available if it were not being spent on patents and lawsuits. It is possible that companies would have an even greater incentive to innovate if they could not rely on a near twenty-year monopoly. (p. 22)

If someone patents a drug, that means no one else can produce it for twenty years—even if they could make it cheaper or improve it. If a filmmaker wants to make a movie inspired by an old book, they have to wait decades for it to enter the public domain (or pay extortionate licensing fees). The whole system is designed to restrict the free flow of ideas, not encourage it.

Another point Kinsella makes is that IP is inherently statist. Unlike real property, which can be defended by individuals, IP only exists if the government enforces it. If you own land, you can build a fence around it. If you own a car, you can lock it up. But if you own a song or an invention, how do you stop people from copying it? The only way is through courts, lawsuits, and government-backed force:

IP rights change the status quo by redistributing property from individuals of one class (tangible-property owners) to individuals of another (authors and inventors). (pp. 35-36)

In other words, IP isn’t about protecting small-time inventors or struggling artists—it’s about big corporations using the law to crush competition. Tech giants hoard patents to sue their rivals. Music labels and Hollywood studios lobby governments to extend copyright indefinitely. It’s no coincidence that copyright terms have been stretched further and further—every time Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain, Disney gets the laws changed.

Kinsella doesn’t suggest tweaking the system or making IP laws “fairer”—he wants to abolish them entirely. This is where his argument really stands out. Many libertarians criticise aspects of copyright and patent law, but they stop short of calling for a total ban. Kinsella isn’t interested in half-measures. He sees IP as fundamentally incompatible with property rights and believes it should go.

He also refuses to play the usual game of compromise. If abolishing patents means some inventors make less money? So be it. If scrapping copyright means authors need to find new ways to profit from their work? Tough. The free market is about competition, not government handouts. If your business model depends on state-enforced monopolies, it deserves to fail:

Any system that elevates rights in ideas to such an extreme that it overrides rights in tangible things is clearly not a suitable ethical system for living, breathing human beings. (p. 28)

Against Intellectual Property is a powerful and a challenging read. If you’ve ever believed that patents and copyrights are essential to innovation, this book will shake that belief out of you. Kinsella’s arguments are clear and impossible to ignore. He doesn’t just poke holes in the case for IP—he obliterates it.

For anyone interested in free markets, property rights, or just plain logic, this book is essential reading. It’s sharp and brutally effective. And best of all? You don’t even have to buy it—Kinsella himself would be the first to say you should copy and share it for free.

Related posts:

The Illiberal Nature of Limited Liability: Stephan Kinsella Replies Stephan Kinsella on the Common Law: Lessons from Bodrum 2025 J.D. Vance in Paris: A Manifesto Against the Death of the West The Case Against Alcohol: Why Only Fools Drink Debate: Against Left-Libertarianism Britain’s Thought Police: A Warning Against State Censorship The Seventh Carbon Budget: The Ruling Class War against the People Continues Against the Plague of Certainty: A Sceptic Reads Henrik Lagerlund Against Realism Without Restraint: A Response to “Gaza: Please Cut the Crocodile Tears” The Case Against the mRNA Vaccines: Two New Studies and the Silence of the Authorities Nolan Principles, busybody fines, and cancelling elections Humans versus Politicals: Part Eight – Some political deductions

Powered by YARPP.