StephanKinsella.com

Related posts:

• Fleming on Woods
• The Trouble with Feser (Feser on Libertarianism)
• Luker on 10 Most Harmful Books
• Minarchists as Statist-Aggressors

Fleming on Woods

Related posts:

• Fleming on Woods
• The Trouble with Feser (Feser on Libertarianism)
• Luker on 10 Most Harmful Books
• Minarchists as Statist-Aggressors
• Feser: What Libertarianism Isn’t and The road from libertarianism

Reply to Feser on Block

Ed Feser’s recent Contra the Rothbardians yet again: A Reply to Walter Block is the latest entry in the author’s growing separation from libertarianism.

I’m sure Block will reply, but I jotted a few notes down when reading his piece, and assemble some of them here. [continue reading…]

From my 2006 LRC post. As the editor of Libertarian Papers, I can relate to Higgs’s experience with such authors.

Heroic Higgs v. “diZerega”

Libertarian Papers, Vol. 2 (2010), Art. #8: “Voltairine de Cleyre: More of an Anarchist than a Feminist?,” by Steve J. Shone.

Abstract: The recently rediscovered Michigan-born poet, essayist, and political philosopher, Voltairine de Cleyre (1866-1912) has been celebrated by modern scholars as both an anarchist and a feminist. In this paper, however, it is argued that detailed scrutiny of her writings perhaps suggests de Cleyre, who spent much of her life in Philadelphia, was consistently an anarchist thinker, but that her ideas are not nearly so compatible with feminism as they have been portrayed.

[Mises]

From Mises blog:

Should Libertarians Oppose “Capitalism”?

Excellent post by Bryan Caplan, Should Libertarians Oppose “Capitalism”?, arguing against Sheldon Richman’s contention that we libertarians should not only not use “capitalism” as a synonym for favoring free markets, but that we should say we oppose “capitalism,” because of the term’s connotation of the historical collusion between business and the state.

I have myself for years now preferred the term anarcho-libertarian instead of anarcho-capitalist, mostly because libertarianism is about more than just free markets. But to the extent capitalism means the private ownership of the means of production–and I think this is a defensible meaning still–it is of course libertarian. We can expect any advanced libertarian society to be “capitalist” in that it would have an industrial, productive economy where the means of production is privately owned, characterized by the division and specialization of labor (see my post Rothbard on Self-Sufficiency and the Division of Labor). In my view we should certainly be in favor of free markets and not adopt instead other terms like “market liberal” or “freed market”. I’m not sure what term best describes us–we favor peace, cooperation. Perhaps Henry Hazlitt’s proffered term, “cooperatism,” is a good one. I think it best to use capitalism to refer to a catallactic aspect of the libertarian, free society, while making it clear that we oppose corporatism and business-state collusion, and use free market or libertarian to describe our preferred socio-political order. [continue reading…]

Korean War Memorial during day

As noted in Justin Levine’s post, Dissent of the Day, a recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit holds “that a U.S. stamp which depicts a view of a public Korean War memorial violates the copyright of the sculptor who designed it.” The case involved the sculptures made by Gaylord, a photograph of them made by John Alli (a “derivative work”), and a stamp made using Alli’s photograph. Alli and the USPS did not get Gaylord’s permission. Gaylord sued for copyright infringement.

The lower court had made three determinations:

1. “Mr. Gaylord was the sole author of the soldier sculptures” (the government was not a joint author);

Korean War Memorial during snow

2. “his sculptures were not exempt from copyright protection under the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA)”, and

3. “the stamp made fair use of Mr. Gaylord’s work.”

Thus, although points 1 and 2 went Gaylord’s way, the USPS still won in the lower court since it had the fair use defense.

On appeal, the CAFC upheld the lower court’s rulings on points 1 and 2, and reversed on 3: they said the stamp was not a fair use. Now I can’t say I am outraged at an agency of the federal government being hampered by federal copyright law. And I am not especially interested in whether the CAFC and lower court were right regarding the first two points (though Judge Pauline Newman, in dissent, was none too happy about it). And while I think the CAFC’s holding on fair use seems defensible based on the language of the fair use statute, it’s instructive to read the court’s reasoning on the “fair use” claim, to get an idea of how obviously artificial and unlibertarian copyright law is. (I’ve written on “Fair Use” before: see World’s Fair Use Day; IP: The Objectivists Strike Back!.)

To decide whether an unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is permissible as a “fair use,” the court has to consider four “factors”:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. [continue reading…]

A “friend” and I were discussing Rand — he said that though Rand said she opposed taxes, “eliminating taxes is among the last reforms Rand would make”. I don’t recall this–instead, I seem to recall she said this about abolishing drug prohibition. Anyone know where there is a cite or quote for either contention?

In a facebook note, Quee Nelson writes about Mises the Utilitarian (appended below). I wonder if he was more of a consequentialist than a utilitarian. Below I collect some points I’ve made along these lines before:

As I noted on p. 50 of my Knowledge, Calculation, Conflict, and Law, reviewing Randy Barnett’s Structure of Liberty:

Barnett’s aim in this ambitious book is to determine the type of legal system, laws, and rights which are appropriate, given the widely-shared “goal of enabling persons to survive and pursue happiness, peace, and prosperity while living in society with others” (p. 23). Happiness, peace, and prosperity are fine principles to select and quite compatible with libertarianism, but Barnett does not attempt to try to justify these basic norms or values. His argument is thus hypothetical and consequentialist, though not, he maintains, utilitarian (pp. 8, 12, 17–23, esp. 22–23).

See also Barnett’s Of Chickens and Eggs—The Compatibility of Moral Rights and Consequentialist Analyses.

From my What Libertarianism Is:

The libertarian seeks property assignment rules because he values or accepts various grundnorms such as justice, peace, prosperity, cooperation, conflict-avoidance, and civilization.[14]

[continue reading…]

In a recent excellent facebook post by Quee Nelson (see appended below), she wrote:

Some of my best friends are Randians. They’re excellent people, and one of the things I love most about them (among many things), is the fact that, no matter how generous, compassionate, and charitable they behave, they insist they’re just being selfish.

This called to mind some of the things I’ve written about this issue, a couple of which I collect here:

From The Inaugural Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society:An Incidental Record, by Sean Gabb:

Then there was Stephan Kinsella, who subjected me during a boat trip around the Ionian coast to a friendly but probing examination of what I thought about Ayn Rand and epistemology. I am not sure if he approved of all I gave in answer. Even so, the surrounding conversation was enjoyable. He was scathing about Objectivism. He noted that David Kelley is an improvement on the official movement. “But when someone has to write 15,000 words on why it is permissible to be nice to others, or to tolerate disagreement” he said, “there must be something wrong with his underlying philosophy”.

[continue reading…]

(H/t Svolte Epocali and Robert Newson)

From Nov. 2008

Re: Teaching Kids about Voting

Posted by Stephan Kinsella on November 4, 2008 09:45 PM

Well, I followed through on my no-voting plan. Drove my 5 year old to the local polling station around 4pm. Very light crowd.

I signed in, and took him to the “booth”–not really a booth, just a little terminal with privacy wings on the side. Not a booth like I had in Pennsylvania where you close the curtain around you. After going through the options, I snapped a few shots of the screen and my kid (holding his “Don’t Vote–It Only Encourages Them” placard). I selected no choices, then hit “submit ballot”–it confirmed that I really wanted to submit a “Blank Ballot” and I did. The election judge guy saw my flash and came over, telling me it’s against federal law to take pix, so he’d have to ask me to delete the picture from my camera. I assured him it was just a picture of my handsome boy. He backed off. Yeah! Back off, state-monkey boy! And lower my taxes, while ye’re at it, too!

Teaching Kids about Voting

Posted by Stephan Kinsella on October 20, 2008 11:44 PM

I don’t always vote–maybe once every 3 or 4 elections–and when I do, I have always voted LP where possible (except for my first vote, in 1984, for Reagan). This year, however, I can’t bring myself to vote for any of the candidates running for President–Obama and McCain are obviously out, and I can’t see voting for Barr, the Libertarian candidate, either (see L. Neil Smith’s criticism). But this year, I want to take my 5 year old to the polls so he can see democracy in action (with appropriate commentary from Dad). So I’ve decided we’ll go together, sign in, go into the booth; I’ll show him how the machine works, and all the abominable choices–and then we’ll leave. I figure if his friends ask him about his trip to the polls, and ask him who his daddy voted for, they won’t be able to comprehend his answer.Update: A Canadian reader writes as follows:

We just had our Federal election up here in Canada.

While we don’t get to vote for Prime Minister and can only vote for the local Member of Parliament, the choices were not good at all (for my riding at least): we had 4 socialists and a separatist (whose party I couldn’t vote for anyway) as the national leaders, and there was not a local candidate I could vote for in good conscience either.

Anyway, I took my 4 year-old son with me, I showed him how we would mark an ‘X’ on the paper ballot of the candidate we wanted to vote for. Then, we spelled out N-O-P-E, one letter in each of the 4 boxes on the ballot to spoil it.

That is one great thing about paper ballots, you can always be sure to spoil them.

Good luck with your voting.