Latest notable terms from this week’s Slate Culture Gabfest and Slate Political Gabfest (feel free to email me suggestions or leave them in the comments to the main page). [continue reading…]
Anarcho-pacifist Jason Ditz did some funny mini-movies about Rothbard and his parting from Cato, with various other libertarian characters thrown in. Recurring characters include Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Tom Palmer, Lew Rockwell, me, Karen De Coster, and others. Many of the movies contain in-jokes regarding various discussions by a group of libertarians on a freewheeling, funny private libertarian discussion list to which Ditz and I belonged. They are strange but oddly compelling and kind of funny. I embed the key movies below; links theretok are found scattered around in various places, viz.: the Anarcho-Pacifist Films blog; What Is The Kochtopus?; and Ditz’s site. Lew Rockwell thought they were great. There is “bonus content” (trailers and director’s commentary) as well. (N.B.: I had nothing to do with the creation of these films other than send Ditz a short voice recording, upon request, for “Wrath of Koch.”)
(Update: some of the links below and google videos are now bad; alternative ones can be found at Ditz’s site and I have added the Youtube embeds and links below.)
The following descriptions are taken from Ditz’s site:
Movie 1: I Can’t Drive 55: The Stephan Kinsella Story (Youtube version) – 2:24 January, 2007 (based on the September 2003 LRC Blog entry by Kinsella)
Those without any sound principles about rights and economics are totally confounded by the issue of gene patents. The author of “The absurdity of patenting genes,” in The Guardian, for example, first observes, “Patents are a sensible idea, because people are more likely to invest in innovation …”. But on the other hand, “patents also act as a barrier to innovation, and gene patents bring these disadvantages into stark relief.” So, patents are sensible, because they stimulate innovation … yet they also hamper innovation. Mmm-hmm.
Libertarians, however, having a better understanding of the nature of property rights, are increasingly recognizing that all patents are unjust (see my The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide). And something about gene patents–having the state grant monopolies on the way our genes are configured–is especially galling. Thank goodness this is being fought by the heroic David Koepsell, who is producing the anti-gene patent documentary Who Owns You? (see also Koepsell – Quinn “Debate” on Gene Patents; David Koepsell: Another Austrian-Influenced IP Opponent). And it’s also good that a federal trial court recently ruled against gene patents, in Association for Molecular Pathology and ACLU v. USPTO and Myriad (see Federal Court Invalidates Breast Cancer Gene Patent, Ronald Baily, Reason‘s Hit & Run; Court: Essentially All Gene Patents Are Invalid, Patently-O). [continue reading…]
Great illustration of the logic of MAD: the infamous “guillotine” cartoon:
Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome — nuclear annihilation.
Congratulations to Professor Peter Boettke on receiving the 2010 Adam Smith Award from the Association of Private Enterprise Education (APEE). Teaching economic literacy and the principles of liberty is absolutely essential to making progress in the fight against the state. Professor Boettke is to be commended for his tireless efforts in this regard.
[TLS]
I blogged a year ago about the “Secret intellectual property treaty [that] could profoundly change life on the Internet.” At the time, the text was still secret but it was believed that the treaty: “seeks to set forth standards for enforcing cases of alleged copyright and patent infringement.” Now, as Cory Doctorow notes in How ACTA will change the world’s internet laws, the text has been leaked. This thing is bad. America and the west have long tried to extend the reach of their mercantalist IP laws — they use the WTO to twist the arms of other countries, etc. (see, e.g., my previous posts Hatch’s “International IP Piracy Priority Watch List”; IP Imperialism (Russia, Intellectual Property , and the WTO); Russian Free Trade and Patents; Bush Wants More Jailed Citizens in Russia and China; China, India like US Patent Reform).
The ACTA is also similar to another arcane law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which, under the guise of protecting “property rights,” snuck in provisions that criminalize even the mere possession of technology that can be used to circumvent digital protection systems (see, e.g., my post TI Uses Copyright Law to Attack TI Calculator Enthusiasts). Likewise, under the guise or protecting property rights in inventions and artistic works (patent and copyright), it “seeks to provide legal authority for the surveillance of Internet file transfers and searches of personal property”. As one group notes, “ACTA goes way, way beyond the TRIPS (the copyright/patent/trademark stuff in the World Trade Organization agreement), creating an entirely new realm of liability for people who provide services on the net”. More invasion of personal liberty and property rights in the name of false, artificial property rights.
So the ACTA is like a hybrid of previous efforts: it is as abusive and insidious as the DMCA, and covers patents as well as copyrights. And it will apply worldwide. This is culmination of America’s efforts use of the WTO to extend western style IP rights worldwide. As Doctorow notes, this is “a radical rewriting of the world’s Internet laws, taking place in secret, without public input. Public input? Hell, even Members of Parliament and Congressmembers don’t get a say in this. The Obama administration’s trade rep says that the US will sign onto ACTA without Congressional debate, under an administrative decree.”
For detailed comments on the ACTA, please see the following report:
James Love, Comments on ACTA Provisions on Injunctions and Damages (pdf), KEI Research Note (Knowledge Ecology International, April 6, 2010).
[cross-posted at Mises blog and The Libertarian Standard]
April 11, 2010 at 6:44 pm-
similarly liberticide moves by the british lower house in rushing through this bill:
http://bit.ly/cyN3ji - April 11, 2010 at 6:48 pm
-
objectivists will be pleased about the international standardization of legislation.
April 11, 2010 at 7:52 pm-
The usual qualifier goes something like: “now I don’t encourage anyone not to pay taxes, but…” But how much of my money helps to lower my own standard of living? How much is going into bills helping to destroy markets, our only protection against the Malthusian population problem? How much of my money has gone into the genocide of middle-easterners? What are the numbers now? I know it broke a million a couple years ago in Iraq alone. 1 cent is beyond what I can morally accept. I always hold my breath, with all my hope being put into what I consider the most important invention man has ever created: the internet. If this is taken away… well, my naive hope is that people remain peaceful in their decent.
April 11, 2010 at 9:54 pm-
how much of my money helps to lower my own standard of living? How much is going into bills helping to destroy markets, our only protection against the Malthusian population problem? How much of my money has gone into the genocide of middle-easterners
All of it. Every red cent.
now I don’t encourage anyone not to pay taxes
I can’t imagine why not.
April 12, 2010 at 4:28 pm-
It’s clearly waaaaaay past time to stop lending any scrap legitimacy or in cooperating with this counterproductive to freedom govt and FED of murderous thieving parasites.
This govt makes KGIIIs depredations upon the colonists seem as mosquito bites.
Are we Americans for freedom at any cost or subsevient get along wimps dodging few if any mosquitos.
Fellow guest Becky Akers and I discussed anarchy, the role of education in fighting statism, and related matters, with host Don Cooper on his Qaoss Talk Radio show, April 10, 2010. The show is archived here (local MP3).
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (10.1MB)
Subscribe: RSS
In recent years the “Net Neutrality” movement has gained steam. This is an effort by various statists, interventionists, do-gooders, meddlers, and techno-ignoramuses who seek to have the government forbid network providers (e.g. cable companies, telcos, and wireless carriers) from selectively blocking certain types of Internet use–for example, to require companies to give Web users equal access to all content, even if some of that content is clogging the network. Of course, as I noted on A Libertarian Take on Net Neutrality, the network neutrality movement is unlibertarian. There is nothing wrong with price discrimination or with charging different prices for different levels of service. As some anti-corporatist types are only too eager to point out, without state intervention the major telcos might well not have as much monopolistic power as they currently do. But it doesn’t make much sense to urge that the state engage in further intervention to fix the problem of previous state intervention. It is state intervention that is the problem.
In the latest development on this front, as reported in U.S. Court Curbs F.C.C. Authority on Web Traffic, cable company Comcast Corporation had challenged the F.C.C.’s authority to impose Net Neutrality rules. Last week, a federal appeals court ruled in Comcast’s favor, holding that F.C.C. regulators have limited power over Web traffic. As the article notes, “The decision will allow Internet service companies to block or slow specific sites and charge video sites like YouTube to deliver their content faster to users.”
Libertarians should not leap for joy, however. The court merely held that current federal statutes do not happen to give the F.C.C. quite enough authority to regulate Internet companies in this manner. They didn’t say it would be unconstitutional or even unwise. So all Congress has to do is pass a law. And they’re good at doing that.
[TLS]
Jeff, re your post LvMI Kindle editions, as I noted there, the Kindle app does not, as far as I know, natively support ePub files. However, the new iBooks format on iPad does. All you do is click on the ePub link for a given book (several are listed here)–or download the ePub file and then open it with iTunes, and iTunes automatically copies it into the Book section of your iTunes Library. Then you can sync you iPad and get whichever books you want. (I suspect iBooks is coming soon to the iPhone and iPod Touch, so you’ll be able to do it then very easily. Yes yes, I know some people use Stanza, Calibre, Bookworm, and all that jazz but it’s very buggy and complicated–italics don’t always carry over, Calibre is difficult to use, etc. ITunes makes it easy.)
I did this with 10 ePub books on Mises.org in about 30 seconds. Then I synced my iPad and got them all. They look great–full color covers, etc. I captured on the iPad the iBooks library’s bookshelf, and a few shots from Guido Hulsmann’s Mises biography in both portrait and landscape mode, some in the middle of page-turns. Enjoy! (My review of the iPad on LRC is here: Thoughts on iPad from a Slightly Disappointed Fanboi.)
I’ll admit: for the last 3 years or so I’ve become an Apple fanboi. My first computer in 1984 was an Apple II+ clone–a Franklin Ace (unfortunately, Apple was able to use copyright law to get this competition squashed). But after that I was in the PC world, for almost 20 years. Until about 3 years ago. I was tempted to get a MacBook but was leery of the change. Finally my wife got a Macbook and one thing led to another–I now live a blessedly PC free world except for the one remaining PC I still have to use at work–and I have plans for that one too. Now I have iPods, iPhones, iMac, MacBooks. I guess I’m a fanboi except I don’t pretend that Macs don’t crash–all my computers crash. They are all too complex not to. People who say their computers don’t crash are either lying or don’t really use them. (Linux-fans–please don’t pester me. I’m glad the market has diversity and tinkerers like you have something you can tinker with. I have two degrees in electrical and computer engineering but I just want a computer that works–a nice tool I can use. I also prefer automatic transmission cars even though I know how to use a stick shift.)
So naturally I could not resist getting an iPad. I had ordered the 3G version which does not arrive till later this month. But finally the temptation to get one won out so I persuaded my wife to let me get a wifi version for her and my son. After all, I told her–we all read books. One won’t be enough! On the other hand, we won’t need two 3G models! Whoever is traveling for work can take the 3G one, I said. So, I nabbed one Monday morning at a local Apple store. [continue reading…]
I’ve been remiss on my duties… just busy at work. Plus there has been a lull in esoteric terms of late. But given my increasing renown (see My Bourbon and Cigar Entertaining Discussed on Slate Culture Gabfest), I better get back on the job! So, with that: the latest notable terms from this week’s Slate Culture Gabfest (no terms for the Slate Political Gabfest for this week yet) (feel free to email me suggestions or leave them in the comments to the main page). [continue reading…]
This is funny. The Slate Culture Gabfest (just about my favorite podcast) had a contest for the best “conversion story”—where a listener would turn some friends or others on to the podcast. One of the entries was by Taylor Roesch, a documentarian.
Coincidentally, Roesch interviewed me at my house a few months ago for a documentary (see Who Owns You? — Gene Patent Documentary), and during libations and sticks after, I mentioned the Culture Gabfest and we found we had a mutual interest. Since I am the notorious “gray-scale croissant” commentator on their Facebook page [see some entries here], Taylor mentioned this in his entry. Go to 35:30 or so of the March 30 episode (mp3); here’s the excerpt [
]. It’s very funny; Taylor almost won, but, alas, the blind kiwi listening to the podcast on a donkey in the Grand Canyon edged him out. Metcalf refers to me as a “nettlesome libertarian.” Ha!
Update: See Slate’s Metcalf on Libertarianism and Nozick, Mises Blog (June 22, 2011)
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }