by Stephan Kinsella
on June 14, 2009
Teegeegeepea has some insightful comments here:
“If too much of “this stuff” takes away our empathy and understanding that this is a tragedy – albeit not worse than someone being shot anywhere else, then that perhaps is a problem of revisionism.”
That was the sentence from Bradley Smith’s reaction to the shooting at D.C’s Holocaust Museum I found most interesting. It reminds me of the debate over desensitizing violent video games some years back. I believe the same arguments were made about pornography before my time. From what I’ve heard evidence (compiled by liberal academics who hate America, families and children in particular) does not support those theories. My own opinion is that weirdos are more likely to be drawn to holocaust denial in the first place, and Von Brunn in particular was a producer rather than a mere consumer of such literature.
Does one have a responsibility to watch what one says based on the reactions of the audience? In the main I agree with Stephan Kinsella’s take on the instigator of a riot in Causation and Aggression. I would say that goes beyond explicitly ordering people to go riot and would (if this actually happened) cover Jim Morrison’s use of crowd psychology to provoke concert-goers. That covers people who deliberately seek to create such a reaction, what about a result that is not sought but was foreseeable as a likely cause of one’s actions? The law provides manslaughter and other crimes of recklessness which do not require mens rea. I think a similar idea applies here and is a reason to include disclaimers if you think listeners might get the wrong idea. All of us speak considering the consequences on our audience. Otherwise we wouldn’t even need to bother speaking the same language or explaining when a bit of technical jargon does not mean what they might assume it does. Given the difficulty of establishing a causal link between the actions of a single person (out of an unknown number of people who may have heard the message) and what has been said, I don’t propose that we introduce anything to criminal or even tort law to cover dangerous publications. All the same, a legal fiction should not delude us into believing a phenomenon is fictitious.
Love the last point.
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 14, 2009
The Video Record of Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society (Program) are now available, including:
- Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “The Role of the Property and Freedom Society in a Crazy World” [Spanish translation; German translation]
- Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “From the Malthusian Trap to the Industrial Revolution. Reflections on Social Evolution” (Mises Blog post with further information)
- Guido Hülsmann, “The Great Crash of 2009: Causes and Consequences”
- Robert Higgs, “The Costs of the American Empire”
- Paul Gottfried, Why Does the Managerial State Deny Human Inequality?
- Steve Farron, The Affirmative Action Hoax
- Douglas French, On Good (Commodity) Credit and Bad (Fiduciary Credit). Experiences of a Former Banker
- Thomas DiLorenzo, The Unholy Alliance: State and Central Bank. American Experiences
- Mustafa Akyol, Kemal Ataturk: The French Connection
- Peter Mentzel, Conflict Arbitration in a Multi-Legal System: The Case of the Ottoman Empire
- Sean Gabb, What is the “Ruling Class?”
- Theodore Dalrymple, In Praise of Prejudice
- Steve Sailer, Barack Obama: America’s Half-Blood Prince
- André Lichtschlag, “Political Correctness” in Germany. A Report from the “Anti-Fascist” Front Line
- Carlos Gebauer, Public Health and Private Sickness – The Law of Governing Bodies, Administrative Corpses, and Ailing Citizens. Illustrations from Germany
- Carlo Stagnaro, Global Warming? So What!
- Robert Grözinger, “Interview of Sean Gabb”
[continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 12, 2009
I’m far from a fan of the moronic “Glenn Beck,” but look at what this Huffington Post lefty, “Joseph Palermo,” has to say about him:
Yesterday afternoon Glenn Beck and two of his guests argued that Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party were “leftwing”; that “political correctness” led the committed white supremacist, James Von Brunn, to shoot a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC; and that ultimately President Barack Obama is the one responsible for the violence because his “bailouts” and “Socialistic” policies are engendering widespread anger. Beck denounced those who claim he is “churning the pot” because, he says, “the pot is already boiling.”
Seeing this spectacle with subtitles at the gym led me to wonder if there are any laws on the books against using the public airwaves to incite violence. Because that is clearly what Beck is doing. I only caught about ten minutes of the show (about all I can stand) and it was a white reactionary tour de force — incendiary, stupid, and racist.”
Look at the bolded text. This supposed lefty advocate of tolerance is obviously calling for the use of state force–criminal punishment, etc.–against people like Beck who dare to publicly decry the leftist orthodoxy. Despite the fact that Beck’s comments simply sound like the conservative mirror-image of comments of lefties. These guys are out of control.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 12, 2009
[From Mises Blog.]
January 14, 2009 7:26 PM by Stephan Kinsella | Other posts by Stephan Kinsella | Comments (24)
Often we opponents of socialistic, legislatively-created, utilitarian-based, property-redistributing, artificial, arbitrary, inconsistent, irrational, innovation-hampering, monopolistic, anti-competitive, and wealth-destroying intellectual property laws are accused of hypocrisy when we “copyright” our articles and books.
I’ve pointed out to such people innumerable times, to little avail, that copyright is a noun, not a verb–that you don’t “copyright” something–you have a copyright in your original works of authorship as soon as you write them, automatically, courtesy of federal law. No copyright notice is required. No copyright registration is required. You have the right, whether you like it or not.
Well, then, why don’t you just “make it public domain,” some then, a bit unreflectively, retort. The problem is, there is no clear and good way to do this.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 12, 2009
Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1 (2009), Article No. 26. “On the Possibility of Assigning Probabilities to Singular Cases, or: Probability Is Subjective Too!”, by Mark R. Crovelli
Abstract: Both Ludwig von Mises and Richard von Mises claimed that numerical probability could not be legitimately applied to singular cases. This paper challenges this aspect of the von Mises brothers’ theory of probability. It is argued that their denial that numerical probability could be applied to singular cases was based solely upon Richard von Mises’ exceptionally restrictive definition of probability. This paper challenges Richard von Mises’ definition of probability by arguing that the definition of probability necessarily depends upon whether the world is governed by time-invariant causal laws. It is argued that if the world is governed by time-invariant causal laws, a subjective definition of probability must be adopted. It is further argued that both the nature of human action and the relative frequency method for calculating numerical probabilities both presuppose that the world is indeed governed by time-invariant causal laws. It is finally argued that the subjective definition of probability undercuts the von Mises claim that numerical probability cannot legitimately be applied to singular, non-replicable cases.
Also: Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1 (2009), Article No. 27. “Milton Friedman & the Human Good,” by Tibor R. Machan
Abstract: Milton Friedman is among those who have favored a value free, amoral defense of the free society. Here I discuss his basic reason for doing so, namely, that the claim to moral knowledge implies authoritarian politics. I argue that this is wrong because to act morally cannot require coercing people to do so–to quote Immanuel Kant, “ought” implies “can.”
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 12, 2009
In this CNBC report, the Cato Institute’s William Niskanen, says of Bernanke: “In terms of performance, he’s performed very well.” With libertarian friends like this….
Update: see DiLorenzo here.
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 12, 2009
Sheldon Richman has a great “TGIF” [“The Goal Is Freedom,” but released on a Friday–get it?] column out today, Intellectual ‘Property’ Versus Real Property: What Are Copyrights and what do they mean for Liberty?. For a very short column, it’s packed with great insights.
Admirably, Richman focuses on justice rather than more utilitarian concerns such as incentive effects:
The crux of the issue is this: Do IP laws protect legitimately ownable things? One’s view of the laws will proceed from one’s answer to that question, and that’s what I will concentrate on here. I leave for another time the issue of incentives. I do so because the justice of a claim must be decided before we consider the specific incentives and disincentives that flow from our decision.
Of course, a principled focus does not mean one doesn’t care about consequences; as Richman adds parenthetically, “(No, this does not make me a “nonconsequentialist.” Consequences figure in our basic conception of justice.)”
[continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 11, 2009
Aww, Lew is so nice:
Not only does he, in his spare time, found and edit the amazing Libertarian Papers, and inspire the anti-IP revolution among libertarians (with Jeff Tucker playing Lenin to his Marx), but he maintains websites for Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Walter Block.
Speaking of Tucker playing Lenin to my Marx, here are a couple of pix: one, me in front of the Budapest University of Economic Science, in 1991, wearing a “Karl Marx: Wanted Dead or Alive Teeshirt,” and another in 1999, on the Italian island of Capri (probably my favorite place in the world), standing in front of a monument to Lenin.
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 11, 2009
I’m now cross-posting but had not been until recently. Here is an archive of all my older LRC Blog Posts, from June 2003 to June 2009 (PDF version; HTML version).
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 9, 2009
Other blogs I have (some fairly moribund) or places I often blog:
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 9, 2009
Update: see Reading Suggestions for Prospective/New Law Students (Roman/Civil law focus); Advice for Prospective Libertarian Law Students
***
From my post Book Recommendations: Private, International, and Common Law; Legal Theory on the Mises Blog. Archived comments below.
A friend interested in law, legal theory, and possibly law school asked me for some recommendations for some good books (or articles, I suppose) that discuss private law systems, international law, the common law, etc.–with particular emphasis on explaining the common law’s or private law’s philosophical underpinnings.
I am drawing a blank on “the” book to read, since in my experience various interesting strands tend to be scattered across a wide array of books and articles; and moreover, most of the best stuff tends to be by mainstreamers or those with otherwise-flawed philosphical, political, or economic viewpoints. So you have to take what you can find here and there.
Here are some of my suggestions, most of which have a lot of implicit caveats:
[continue reading…]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 8, 2009
Great film. Eastwood is amazing.
{ }
Recent Comments