StephanKinsella.com

Nice column by Wendy McElroy, The Bill of Intellectual Rights, advocating civility, tolerance, and respect for diverse opinions, and opposing a feminism whose “politics of rage […] depicts men as political enemies of women,” which has replaced “reasoned argument with ad hominem onslaught”. Among the “intellectual rights you should demand: [] You have the right to not care. Perhaps anorexia in America is being blamed on Calista Flockhart for the 100th time. If the topic is boring, you have the right to state, ‘I don’t want to talk about this further.'” and “You have the right to not understand something without being made to feel stupid. A feminist may be excoriating white male culture for the lack of women in Congress. You have the right to say: ‘I don’t understand. Since more women vote than men, how can men be blamed for election results?'” Another: “You have the right to form an opinion and to express it. You do not need a diploma, permission from your spouse, dispensation from the Church, or a birth certificate listing the ‘correct’ sex. Simply by being human, you have a right to reach conclusions and state them. For example, men have a right to independent opinions on ‘women’s’ issues like abortion.”

I’ve recently updated my KinsellaLaw IP Links page, including the list of Obscure/Ridiculous/Curious Patents and related matters.

Interesting article in RedHerring: Patents, long the tech world’s currency, come under attack. Subtitled: The patent office has been criticized for allowing a ticket of patents to grow in recent years; by Julie Landry, April 19, 2002. More info on patents.

One of my favorite quotes is this one by Walker Percy (though it is too cynical): “How can the great suck of self ever hope to be a fat cat dozing in the sun?”, from The Second Coming (more text).

***

Although I hate its silly, hand-wringing cynicism, and also dislike silly “existential dread” stuff… and stuff like the following:

• Nietzsche handwringing about the “horror and absurdity of existence” …  “One man will be enthralled by the Socratic delight in knowledge and the delusion that it might heal the eternal wound of existence”. The Birth of Tragedy
• Sartre and “Nausea“
• Adorno’s concept of “damaged life” or “damaged existence.” Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life.
• Nozick’s ridiculous and self-absorbed narcissism in his non-rigorous, hyperbolic statement that “I believe that the Holocaust is an event like the Fall in the way traditional Christianity conceived it, something that radically and drastically alters the situation and status of humanity … I do not claim to understand the significance of this, but here is one piece, I think: It would not be a special tragedy if humankind ended, if the human species were destroyed in atomic warfare or the earth passed through some cloud that made it impossible for the species to continue reproducing itself.” Robert Nozick, The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations (Simon & Schuster: 1989) pp. 237–39.

Great column by the great Joe Stromberg, Liberventionism Rides Again. Discusses the problematic war/defense views of various libertarians and groups, including Brink Lindsey and others discussed here in recent blogs. For another critique of Lindsey, see Look Ma: Invisible Hands, by John T. Kennedy.

Should Genes Be Patented?, a recent article by engineer David Holcberg, writing in the Objectivist Capitalism Magazine, answers “Yes”. The article’s reasoning illustrates the confusion on the part of libertarians who defend intellectual property. Holcberg, being an Objectivist, does not even consider whether patent rights are valid property rights; he takes this for granted, and only asks whether they should be extended to cover genes.

Holcberg originally opposed patents on genes, arguing back in 2000 “that naturally occurring genes should not be patented because they are not inventions, but discoveries of what already exists in nature” (emphasis added). What is somewhat amusing is that Holcberg changed his mind due to reasoning later supplied by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), a federal agency. Amazing, government agencies not only defend us and protect us, they also help us find solutions to difficult philosophical issues! (By the way, Holcberg’s flip-flop and struggle with this issue illustratates how non-objective is the distinction between “inventions” and “discoveries”.)

Holcberg accepts the PTO’s argument that “an isolated and purified DNA molecule that has the same sequence as a naturally occurring gene is eligible for a patent because that DNA molecule does not occur in that isolated form in nature.” Writes Holcberg:

The PTO’s argument is that in discovering and isolating a gene, a scientist creates something that has never existed before: the isolated gene. A patent is therefore given as recognition that a gene, once identified, isolated, and shown to have a specific utility, acquires commercial value, value that it did not have before. Only then can it be manipulated and used for commercial purposes.

But note, a gene “discovery” of this sort can only be used commercially if it is first granted a patent (why else advocate a patent, if not to make the thing patented commercially valuable?). But then it is circular reasoning to argue that its “commercial value” justifies granting to the thing the very patent that confers commercial value on it.

In any event, Holcberg has changed is mind. Instead of opposing patents on genes on the grounds that they are mere discoveries, not inventions, he now concludes, “It would indeed be utterly unjust not to grant a patent to a scientist for a gene he worked to discover, isolate, and find a use for.” He does not, however, deny that they are still just discoveries; apparently, the standard itself for conferring patent protection has changed. Amazing! It appears Holcberg has adopted a new rule, something like this: one is entitled to a state-granted monopoly (for how long? 17-18 years? yeah, that sounds objective and “just about right”) on “things” that a person “works” to “discover” if the thing has “commercial value” (that is, after it is given a patent monopoly).

Where in the world does such reasoning come from? It is amazing to me that Objectivists, who pride themselves on trying to find clear, rational, serious justifications for their moral and political views, would endorse such sloppy, ambiguous, vague, and circular reasoning. Of course the reason is that Rand herself made a mistake: she incorrectly concluded that there should be property rights in creations such as inventions; and now the Objectivists are stuck trying to square the circle, instead of taking the easy way out–admitting Miss Rand got this one wrong.

Interestingly, the PTO recognized one danger of extending patent rights to genes–the patentee would theoretically own the body of anyone else having that gene! This is because the person whose body contains the patented gene is “using” the gene, thus infringing the patent. Holcberg cheerfully buys into the PTO’s makeweight argument extricating itself from the difficulty its own absurd new property right creates:

But if isolated genes identical to genes in our own bodies can be patented, wouldn’t we be violating their patents just by being alive and making use of our genes in our metabolic processes?

No, argued the PTO. “A patent on a gene covers the isolated and purified gene but does not cover the gene as it occurs in nature. Thus, the concern that a person whose body includes a patented gene could infringe the patent is misfounded. The body does not contain the patented, isolated and purified gene because genes in the body are not in the patented, isolated and purified form.”

Well, lucky us! =Whew= that was a close one; thank heavens, a government agency confirms that such concerns are “unfounded” (in its view). But who knows, maybe a court will someday accept the PTO’s argument in favor of genetic patents but strike down the makeweight argument, thus opening the door for a slave-society with genetic scientists owning the rest of us. Well, who are we to stand in the way of Randian justice?

In a recent blog post, I mentioned several attacks on anti-war libertarians by not-so-anti-war libertarians. One of the latter, Brink Lindsey, continues to pile on both anarchocapitalists and anti-war libertarians, i.e. anyone who opposes the state. Following is the text of an email I sent him last night:

Dear Mr. Lindsey:

You write in a recent blog post: “… in the absence of government enforcement, there is no “invisible hand” in which people are restrained to pursue their welfare only by offering to make others better off (as opposed to seeking gain by taking things from others). That doesn’t mean that, in anarchy, everybody is necessarily a predator. It just means that predators are uninhibited.”

Do you really mean that aggressors are literally “uninhibited” under anarchy? Don’t you think private defense would still exist, and deter some crime? Surely you recognize that many people would not commit crime, for practical and moral reasons–not because it is illegal. Most people would not steal their neighbor’s wallet, even if they could get away with it. Aren’t you aware that the threat of utter social ostracism would also “inhibit” some crime? Not perfectly, of course, but it cannot be said to be completely inhibited or uninhibited, in either anarchy or archy. There will always be some degree of crime.

For even under archy, predators are not “inhibited”–of course you are aware that today crime does still occur–despite our government police forces. In fact, in addition to crimes not prevented by the state, the police themselves require crime to exist (e.g. taxes) or at the very least, inevitably devolve into a semi-criminal organization (outlawing drugs, etc.).

So crime is not completly inhibited under archy, or under anarchy. So what’s your point? That there is “more” inhibition under a state system? How do you know? By what measure?

You also say that Mises “supported conscription”–which today, “happily … is not needed [sic],” and that some of his “latter-day disciples”–no doubt a reference to the Mises Institute–“don’t share the old man’s wisdom.” I take it, then, that you think it is “wise” to support conscription, and that you would if it were “needed”; and that it’s a “shame” that Mises’ current supporters (not “disciples”) also do not support conscription.

It appears that being pro-war leads to being pro-conscription. Is this really consistent with libertarianism?

Many libertarians naturally oppose the wars of the state and the excuses it gives for them–but not all. The principled anti-war, anti-state, pro-freedom, pro-individual, pro-rights stance of LewRockwell.com, Anti-State.com, AntiWar.com, the Independent Institute, et al. is being attacked from other erstwhile libertarians, e.g. Brink Lindsey, Cato‘s Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies, Virginia Postrel (see Postrel’s 4/4/02 post on “Libertarian Isolationists”; see David Gordon’s brilliant review of Postrel’s “stasist/dynamist” thesis), and ex(?)-Objectivist writer David Brown, of FEE/Laissez Faire Books (not to mention assorted neocons, globalist hawks, and their ilk). The attacks are variously ridiculous, disingenous, ignorant, and downright embarrasing to their authors. Shame. ‘Nuff said.

My October 2001 LewRockwell.com article, New Israel:

A Win-Win-Win Proposal, which proposed relocating Israel to U.S. public lands such as Utah or the Anwar area of Alaska, provoked the expected accusations of anti-semitism (as well as objections from anti-semites). Now comes an eerily similar proposal on FoxNews.com, How ‘Bout Relocating Israel to Mexico?, by Ken Layne (April 2, 2002).

According to this site, an attempt to create a “new Hong Kong”, called the Limón REAL Project, is in the works. The idea is apparently to transform the Costa Rican province of Limón into a free market autonomous zone (REAL is the Spanish acronym for “Free and Autonomous Region”). See also this link (link purported to expire in 3 days). Another “new libertarian nation” scam? Who knows.