StephanKinsella.com

• Hoppe vs. the Alt-Right

As Guido Hülsmann and I observe in our Introduction to Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Mises Institute, 2009), Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe is without a doubt one of the most important libertarian scholars of our time: “He has made pioneering contributions to sociology, economics, philosophy, and history. He is the dean of the present-day Austrian School of economics, and is famous as a libertarian philosopher. He and his writings have inspired scholars all over the world to follow in his footsteps and to provide a scientific foundation for individual freedom and a free society.” Hoppe is beloved and admired by libertarians worldwide for his tireless work in the service of liberty and his prodigious scholarly output–his publications have been translated into over 21 languages; and his international Property and Freedom Society, founded in 2006, draws an increasingly impressive audience at each annual meeting (the next one starts in about a week, at which I am speaking). ¹ And yet, as his mentor and friend Murray Rothbard, the greatest libertarian thinker ever, noted in his 1990 article Hoppephobia:

Although he is an amiable man personally, Hoppe’s written work seems to have the remarkable capacity to send some readers up the wall, blood pressure soaring, muttering and chewing the carpet. It is not impolite attacks on critics that does it. Perhaps the answer is Hoppe’s logical and deductive mode of thought and writing, demonstrating the truth of his propositions and showing that those who differ are often trapped in self-contradiction and self-refutation.

Here, Rothbard was talking about Hoppe’s “argumentation ethics” defense of libertarian rights, which drove many libertarian scholars bonkers.

Another controversy erupted in 2004 when, during a money and banking class lecture, Professor Hoppe illustrated the concept of “time preference” by noting that people who have children tend to develop longer time horizons (they have to plan ahead for their kids); and that, in comparison, certain demographic groups that tend not to have children, such as homosexuals, the very old, etc., could be expected not to develop as as long an economic time horizon as those that do have children. In other words, because homosexuals don’t have children, ceteris paribus, they will have higher time preference. Now whether this is empirically true or not is not the point; it was simply an illustration of the concept of time preference. And yet a student took offense, resulting in sanctions by UNLV and Hoppe’s battle with the thought police–which he ultimately won (see Hoppe, My Battle with the Thought Police, Mises Daily (April 12, 2005); Stephan Kinsella & Jeff Tucker, The Ordeal of Hoppe, The Free Market (April 2005); Jeff Tucker, Idiot Patrol, Mises Blog (Mar. 2, 2005); and the Hans-Hermann Hoppe Victory Blog, signed by over 1800 supporters). [continue reading…]

1. See also Hoppe Ranked #36 Most Influential Philosopher, 1990–2020; Kinsella, Hoppe: A Précis and Read Hoppe, Then Nothing Is the Same. [↩]

Related

• Extreme Praxeology
• The “Ontology” Mistake of Libertarian Creationists
• Robert Pascal Correspondence, 1993–1994
• Deschamps Vargas, “AI Alignment from First Principles: Why Current AI Cannot Be Conscious, Why Strong AGI Requires Consciousness, and Why This Resolves the Alignment Problem”
• Gamrot, Labor as the Basis for Intellectual Property Rights: Against Cwik

I had lunch a while back with a Christian guy, who insisted there is an “abstract” realm, God, etc. He had a convoluted “proof” of God’s existence (and the existence of this whole Abstract Realm) based on … the existence of language and information. He basically argued that there are certain problems that cannot be solved without assuming his ontology: the fact that there is life in the natural world … means that there is information … means that there is “language”…. implying that there is more than just natural-world causality… implying that there are these other realms and ontological breakdowns. In other words, if you have “meaning” you have to have some intelligent being that imparts the meaning; and language has meaning, by definition, right? And there is a “language” to life itself, right? Right? So… the natural world has “meaning” and “thus” there must have been a God who “authored” this meaning or language.

Hey, the universe sings to me, man, so it must be alive–singers are alive, aren’t they? And here we see the perils of overuse of metaphors and non-rigorous reasoning combined with wishful thinking and creative imagination (see Appendix: On the dangers of metaphors in scientific discourse to my post Objectivist Law Prof Mossoff on Copyright; or, the Misuse of Labor, Value, and Creation MetaphorsRead more: Objectivist Law Prof Mossoff on Copyright; or, the Misuse of Labor, Value, and Creation Metaphors).

Anyway, I tried to clarify his picture of reality, to pin him down, to get him to see how ridiculous this is. He refused to include “God” as part of “the universe” even though it’s “all that exists,” so I had to create new terms. I made this drawing of “The Ontology of the Omniverse,” and provided him with a description, an edited version of which is below. He tentatively agreed with my description, but didn’t seem interested in discussing it further. [continue reading…]

Well, back in 1995, that is 🙂 See his post Bye-Bye for IP, an excellent short critique of “intellectual property.” As I noted in the comments, I think I tied him in coming to my senses about IP: I believe my first published piece against IP was in 1995 as well in the IOS Journal. There may have been something earlier; I’m not sure. I may have presented something a bit earlier at some Federalist Society meetings in Philadelphia; the next thing I can find that I published was in 1998 for the Pennsylvania Bar Association Intellectual Property Newsletter (later republished in a Federalist Society online forum).

The 1995 publication followed on the heels of my taking the patent bar exam in 1994. I had been thinking about IP for a long time, since 1987 or so at least, because Rand’s defense of IP had always bugged me. I started thinking about it harder in 1992 or so, when I started practicing IP law.

Good times.

Just got back from a very nice beach wedding in Fort Walton, for my niece Emily Turner, who married Steven Crowe. It was at The Breakers; we stayed nearby at Waterscape, where Ethan had a lot of fun on the lazy river, and also with my parents, who joined us. Pix and movies can be found at my smugmug gallery here; the movies are also embedded below:

I’m no fan of electoral politics, and never did think Rand Paul was a consistent libertarian or even as libertarian as his father, Ron Paul—though his recent remarks on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 make me think he may be more libertarian than he feels he can admit publicly. I don’t agree with many of his stated positions, but of late he’s being attacked for what is most libertarian: his view that private businesses have a right to discriminate on their own property (see, e.g., attacks by the monstrous Paul Krugman and an editorial from the New York Times).

Libertarians can debate whether the portions of the CRA64 that prohibit states and municipalities from discriminating on the basis of race, gender, etc., are libertarian or constitutional. As for the latter, the Fourteenth Amendment was illegally ratified, making legislation enacted pursuant thereto, such as the CRA64, unconstitutional (for more on the ratification issue, see Gene Healy’s The Squalid 14th Amendment). As for the former: libertarian centralists naively favor the federal government having broad powers to supervise the states, while libertarian decentralists and anarchists fear the central state and favor decentralization (see my posts Libertarian Centralists; The Libertarian Case Against the Fourteenth Amendment; Healy on States’ Rights and Libertarian Centralists; The Heroic Gene Healy on the 14th Amendment: “If this be heresy—then make the most of it!”; see also the insightful comments of J.H. Huebert quoted here).

But there can be no doubt that the provisions of the law that prohibit racial and other discrimination by private businesses in employment or accommodation (such as hotels and restaurants) are manifestly unlibertarian and unjust. Sadly, however, some libertarians actually endorse the state’s infringement on property rights as embodied in this law. Most of the prominent libertarian defenders of the unlibertarian aspects of the CRA1964 seem to be associated with the Cato Institute, and include Brink Lindsey (see Cato Scholar Scolds Rand Paul, Gives OK to Soup Nazi; Lindsay’s stance is perhaps not surprising given his pro-war views), David Bernstein, Richard Epstein, and Roger Pilon (see my post Libertarian Centralists—Pilon’s stance is not too surprising, given his defense (archive) of the Police America Act). (Julian Sanchez, in a somewhat maundering article, seems to weakly defend Paul, but I’m not sure.) I don’t know if such a major deviation from libertarianism arises from shaky foundations (such as utilitarianism), naivety about the ability of the central state to do justice, or fear of a politically-correct backlash, but it’s pretty sad that a leftist is better on this issue than some libertarians–I have in mind Robert Scheer, who gave a surprisingly good and quasi-libertarian defense of Rand Paul on KCRW’s Left, Right and Center last week–he tears apart the Rand-bashing of his co-hosts Ariana Huffington (who drops the PC racism junk) and Tony Blankley (who says he agrees “intellectually” with Paul but still calls him a kook); see also Scheer’s article Who’s Afraid of Rand Paul? (Even John Fund and Aayan Hirsi Ali, both who seem libertarianish, gave a decent defense of Paul on the latest Bill Maher show, if memory serves). See also the partial transcription of Scheer’s remarks here: [continue reading…]

As I noted previously, I was interviewed recently for a promising new documentary by lawyer-philosopher David Koepsell and filmmaker Taylor Roesch, “Who Owns You?” (Here’s the first trailer, on Vimeo.) Here’s an email I just received from Taylor:

Hello Family and Friends,

As you may or may not know, for the last eight months, I have been filming a documentary on the subject of human gene patenting with David Koepsell, philosopher and author of the book Who Owns You? The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Our Genes.  We have made great progress since last October, filming numerous interviews with genetic counselors, patent attorneys, and the one and only James Watson.  Currently, we have over 35 hours of footage and expect to film another 35 hours this summer.  Below is a link to the trailer for the documentary:

Who Owns You? – Trailer

Our film has nicely dove-tailed with the recent court case between the Myriad Genetics, patent holder of genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 (which contribute to breast cancer), and the ACLU as well as numerous individuals and clinical organizations.  At the beginning of April, the honorable Judge Sweets of the Federal District Court in New York, ruled in favor of the ACLU, making Myriad’s patents invalid.  Initially, this was great news!  Not only had the ACLU won this case, but my film had an ending.  My celebration was premature because Myriad has decided to appeal the decision.  The case is currently in the Appellate Court and both sides intend on taking it to the US Supreme Court.  It will be years before a final decision is reached.  If we can spotlight this issue in the public square, it will help build public support for the lower court’s decision, and perhaps the Appellate Court and Supreme Court will uphold the recent ruling.

But there is more at stake than this one case, over 20% of the human genome has been patented.  While the ACLU case highlights this problem, there are still many questions about whether it will invalidate all of these sorts of gene patents.

We have some great people willing to help us as you can see from our trailer but there are still a lot of costs involved in finishing the film. We need additional funds to conduct more interviews in Chicago, Washington DC, Berkeley CA, and The Netherlands. After we finish filming this summer, post production will begin and a final product should be ready by December 2010. We have financed much of the work ourselves, but we will need at least $3,000.00 to complete this important film. Any money you can contribute will go a long way to getting this documentary done and this issue heard.  Please feel free to send this email along to anyone you think might be interested in helping us out.

Below is a link to our Kickstarter website where you can easily donate to our project:

Your Genes Have Been Patented – A Feature Documentary titled Who Owns You?

Thank you very much,

Taylor Roesch
(757) 817-5052
[email protected]

Latest notable terms from this and last week’s Slate Culture Gabfest (feel free to email me suggestions or leave them in the comments to the main page, which keeps a running collection of the terms from this series of posts). [continue reading…]

Interesting column by Oliver Burkeman in The Guardian (8 May 2010), “Are you an Asker or a Guesser?” The “Asker-Guesser” paradigm seems like bogus pop-analysis, but the first part, I like: just say no and don’t give a reason; giving a reason invites negotiation or argument. I like the ways of saying no: “I’m afraid that won’t be possible”, or “Oh dear, I find I’m watching television that night”, or “I can’t, because I’m unable to.” Here’s the opening:

The advice of etiquette experts on dealing with unwanted invitations, or overly demanding requests for favours, has always been the same: just say no. That may have been a useless mantra in the war on drugs, but in the war on relatives who want to stay for a fortnight, or colleagues trying to get you to do their work, the manners guru Emily Post‘s formulation – “I’m afraid that won’t be possible” – remains the gold standard. Excuses merely invite negotiation. The comic retort has its place (Peter Cook: “Oh dear, I find I’m watching television that night”), and I’m fond of the tautological non-explanation (“I can’t, because I’m unable to”). But these are variations on a theme: the best way to say no is to say no. Then shut up.

This is a lesson we’re unable to learn, however, judging by the scores of books promising to help us. The Power Of A Positive No, How To Say No Without Feeling Guilty, The Book Of No… Publishers, certainly, seem unable to refuse. (Two recent books addressing the topic are Marshall Goldsmith’s Mojo, and Womenomics, by Claire Shipman and Katty Kay.) This is the “disease to please” – a phrase that doesn’t make grammatical sense, but rhymes, giving it instant pop-psychology cachet. There are certainly profound issues here, of self-esteem, guilt etcetera. But it’s also worth considering whether part of the problem doesn’t originate in a simple misunderstanding between two types of people: Askers and Guessers.

…

Here’s the first trailer (Vimeo) for a promising new documentary by lawyer-philosopher David Koepsell and filmmaker Taylor Roesch (I was interviewed for it as mentioned here).

Who Owns You? – A Documentary – Trailer from Taylor Roesch on Vimeo.

Over the last 20 years, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has been issuing patents to universities and private companies on raw human genes. One company or university is given a legal monopoly over a molecule that is inside every human being and many other animals. This documentary explores the legal, ethical, and clinical ramifications of human gene patenting.

whoownsyoufilm.com

Taylor Roesch
taylorroesch.com

David Koepsell
davidkoepsell.com

Music by:
Carter Mahnke

In Put Your Hands Up In The Air For Peace!, I noted a recent song, “Peace,” by the Luminaries, and other classic pro-peace songs (clips re-posted below). Libertarian philosopher Geoffrey Plauché notes a recent pro-peace video in his post White Flag Warrior:

There’s a new anti-war rock/hip-hop song hitting the air waves lately. It is called White Flag Warrior, from the album Survival Story, by Flobots and featuring Tim McIlrath of the punk rock band Rise Against. It’s a catchy tune with good lyrics, melding both rock and hip hop elements. The song has a strong non-violent resistance tinge to it. The oft repeated line that “we’d rather make our children martyrs than murderers” reminds me of the Socratic position that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit it — truly libertarian sentiments.

[continue reading…]

Reply to Roderick Long’s Fall Right, Swing Left:

1. Stephan Kinsella on May 15, 2010 at 8:26 am

   I agree with the criticism of Stossel. But I disagree with the idea that libertarians are either left- or right-. In my view, the proper conception of libertarianism rejects the left-right spectrum outright, and also rejects left and right as both confused and fallacious ideas (in my view, leftism is more coherent, but clearly unlibertarian; rightism is less coherent but also unlibertarian).

   We should be non-prefix libertarians. The left-libertarians are trying too hard to graft onto libertarianism their own personal preferences or predictions, and trying way too hard to find leftist insights that libertarians ought to learn from–the left is confused and flawed, and should learn from us. [continue reading…]