Someone asked me thoughts to online writings that make the best libertarian case against the 14th amendment. Here is my reply:
The “libertarian” case against it … well that’s a different issue than the legal case. The best legal case is in my view in Raoul Berger’s works, and in the Slaughterhouse decision itself [for Berger, see his work scanned in here; see also here]. My view on the legalities is that if nothing else, the 14th amendment is not clear about what privileges or immunities means. And, given that the broader you construe P-I the more power you grant to the central state, basically eating away at the core federalist structure of the Constitution itself [a great writer on this is law prof Tom McAffee; some of his stuff is here; see also my post The Unique American Federal Government], eroding the “vertical separation of power” and the “limited and enumerated scheme” of powers delegated to the feds, then you have to give the P-I clause a narrow reading and you have to construe any ambiguity against a grant of power to the feds. This is because if you find a right in there, that is a grant of power to the federal government to have jurisdiction over the states on this matter. [continue reading…]
An acquaintance passed on to me this PDF file of a Powerpoint presentation on global warming by MIT Professor Richard S. Lindzen. As my friend said, “it is a powerful rebuttal to those who are sure that humans are causing global warming.” The file is: Global Warming: What is it all about?, Rockhurst University, February 11, 2009.
Missouri GOP Calls for Revolution notes that “Missouri’s Lafayette County Republican Central Committee has put up a billboard proudly advising citizens to prepare for the violent overthrow of the US government.” The billboard (see right) reads: [continue reading…]
I saw this sign by the 610 loop in Houston today, and snapped this picture with my iPhone. The sign displays an ominous looking Texas state agent, and the words read:
THE EYES OF TEXAS ARE UPON YOU: Cellular Phone Users: please call 911 to report criminal activities or emergencies.
You know, like if mommy and daddy don’t recycle or pay their taxes.
As I mentioned in Radical Patent Reform Is Not on the Way, in in In re Bilski, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) modified previous holdings regarding the patentability of software or business-method patents in upholding the rejection of patent claims involving a method of hedging risks in commodities trading. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and oral arguments were heard earlier this month. This entire area of patent law is very arcane, but the main issues and the oral arguments are explained very well by the heroic IP-abuse reporter Joe Mullin in Bilski v. Kappos Oral Arguments: Supreme Skepticism Toward Method Patents.
Take a look at Mullins’ discussion of the oral arguments–it’s fascinating seeing the Justices grapple with the absurdity of patent law. A few choice excerpts: [continue reading…]
I’ve done a good deal of writing on Hoppe’s argumentation ethics defense of libertarian rights and related matters (see Revisiting Argumentation Ethics, Mises and Argumentation Ethics). I was reminded recently of Guido Hülsmann’s superb and unique presentation of argumentation ethics in his paper “The A Priori Foundations of Property Economics,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 7, no. 4 (Winter 2004), in particular the section “The Foundations of Property Economics,” starting on p. 50. It’s really an excellent take on this, and has a fantastic discussion of the nature of appropriation, including his “Counterfactual Analysis of Appropriation.” Highly recommended for those interested in argumentation ethics.
“The settling of conflict requires some form of communication and argument. But arguing would be
senseless if it could not change the opinions and actions of others. The point is precisely that we want our discussion partners to think and act differently. We acknowledge that they have control over their wills and bodies, and moreover we want them to exercise this control. In other words, in any exchange of argument, all discussion partners agree at least on two things: (1) that each of them is the factual owner of his will and body, and (2) that each of them should exercise this control.”
We may want them to exercise that control *given that they have it*, but that does not mean we agree that they “should” have such control in the first place. Hulsmann cooks up a normative statement out of nothing.
We may want them to exercise that control *given that they have it*, but that does not mean we agree that they “should” have such control in the first place. Hulsmann cooks up a normative statement out of nothing.
Economics of planned economies. But you knew that, didn’t you? Or no wait you probably didn’t because you’re a clueless troll. Also, l2read, it’s Inquisitor.
Per Mises policy (comments should be intelligent and civil) many of the posts above have been deleted or redacted, for containing inappropriate defamatory comments or sexual preference related insults. Those who continue to defame will be banned.
It’s a seasonal mutation I go through. In truth, I prefer the purple light, so I’ve gone back to it. I may, however, change my title from Lord to Pope. Still thinking about it.
Well, not quite. But this post’s title is based on a little linguistic joke passed on to me by Paul Vahur. He informs me that the word “hallitus” means “government” in Finnish, but in Estonian it means “mold”. (Estonian and Finnish are similar languages like German and Swedish are.)
Two bones to pick with Emily. First, she is infuriated with Palin for not giving credit to feminism, even though she “gained” from victories of feminism. I am no Palin fan, and as a libertarian am not completely opposed to the feminist agenda. But criticisms like these seem incredibly unfair to me. They seek to muzzle people by virtue of their gender or race. It’s okay for a white man to oppose affirmative action but not Clarence Thomas since he “benefited” from it; a man can criticize feminism … but not a woman? People have a perfect right to hold whatever views they want, regardless of their gender or race etc.; they can even disagree with a policy that has affected (even benefited) them. (I oppose patent law even though I’ve made money off of it; a tax lawyer can oppose the income tax; a cancer doctor can oppose cancer, etc.)
Second bone: Emily accuses Palin of lying because of the Death Panels remark. The other lies or errors that I’ve heard of seem trivial, and this one does not seem like a lie. See Lew Rockwell here:
On Morning Joe today, all the Republicans employed by the Obama …regime via MSNBC were united with the Dems in chastizing Sarah Palin for her comment that Obamacare would lead to death panels promoting euthanasia and infanticide of the “unfit.” How could the mobs possibly think this? After all, Obama supports federal funding for killing the unborn, and his plan will massively expand this program. He sends his predator drones to kill those unfit for life, according to his calculus, in Afghanistan. He supports a war in Iraq that has taken a million lives. He has ethnically cleansed millions in Pakistan. He is the product of an ideological movement that is pro-euthanasia. Of course, Obamacare will eventuate in killing people.
We libertarians recognize the state is nothing but a killing machine, an agent of destruction and death. You liberals are very inconsistent about this. As the great Ludwig von Mises said, “No socialist author ever gave a thought to the possibility that the abstract entity which he wants to vest with unlimited power—whether it is called humanity, society, nation, state, or government—could act in a way of which he himself disapproves.”
I’m not surprised you bring this up–you raised a similar notion as some sort of criticism of Hoppe’s argumentation ethics years ago in this piece. In my reply thereto, I noted:
MC introduce supposed “counterexamples” of God and slavery. … As for God – you can’t just posit that God owns everyone and “therefore” we are not self-owners. Moroever, even if God does own us, it could be that we are still self-owners vis-a-vis each other. In any event, this in no way refutes the conclusion that only the libertarian norms can be argumentatively justified in discourse.
If there is a God, since He is Good, we can assume he’s libertarian and has decreed a libertarian moral law within his universe. So even if God owns A and B, A still has a better claim to A’s body than B does. [continue reading…]
I was invited to be a guest on The Peter Mac Show last night and ended up staying on for both hours. It was a pretty in-depth interview. The host asked impressively intelligent questions for someone who had just started coming around to the anti-IP position (after reading my Intellectual Property and Libertarianism just the day before (!)). The MP3 files are here: hour 1; hour 2 (on Peter’s site, hour 1, hour 2). [Local files: hour 1; hour 2]
Defenders of patents commonly say they are against innovators’ ideas being “stolen” or “plagiarized.” This implies that patents simply permit an innovator to sue those who copy his idea. This position betrays either disingenuity or ignorance about patent law. Let me explain.
Under copyright law, someone who independently creates an original work similar to another author’s original work is not liable for copyright infringement, since the independent creation is not a reproduction of the other author’s work. Thus, for example, a copyright defendant can try to show he never had access to the other’s work, as a defense. The reason for this is that the fundamental copyright is, well, a right to copy one’s original creative work. By the nature of creative works that are subject to copyright, it is very unlikely someone would independently create the same novel, say, or painting, as another author. (And if copyright only protected literal copying, it would be much less a problem; but unfortunately it protects a bundle of rights including also the right to make “derivative works“.) But, in the rare case where author 2 independently creates a work very similar to that of author 1, it is not an infringement of author 1’s copyright, since author 2 did not copy anything. [continue reading…]
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }