StephanKinsella.com

Recent US patent: Color coded tools (PTO version). This is a patent on a tool, e.g. a wrench or hammer, “having an outer surface wherein a portion of the outer surface is colored and wherein the colored portion of the outer surface is impregnated into the tool”. Utter genius. Call the Nobel committee. More ridiculous/obscure patents.

Karen De Coster has launched the latest Austrian-libertarian website, KarenDeCoster.com. Also check out the fairly new HansHoppe.com, built and maintained by moi.

If I see, one more time, that wretched FoxNews channel commercial for Christy Lane, I might. This is the commercial introduced by some Vietnam vet who says that he was in the war, but there was “another soldier” over there with him–“Christy Lane,” some gospel singer, who looks like a cross between Alice, the maid from the Brady Bunch, and “kiss my grits” Flo from the sitcom Alice. When the commercial shows her lip-synching to her cheesy version of ABBA’s “I believe in angels,” my trigger finger itches.

According to FindLaw, “A proposal by a California congressman would give the entertainment industry broad new powers to try to stop people from downloading pirated music and movies off the Internet. Rep. Howard L. Berman, D-Calif., formally proposed legislation that would give the industry unprecedented new authority to secretly hack into consumers’ computers or knock them off-line entirely if they are caught downloading copyrighted material.” This bill seeks to legalize trespass onto private property. I.e., it transfers partial control/ownership rights from consumers and others, to holders of copyright. Yet another example of how assigning property rights to intangibles leads to infringement of property rights in scarce resources. Another example is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection technology or to create or “traffic in” circumvention technology. Not to mention the fact that copyright holders can tell property owners what not to do with their own property.

I would venture to guess that significantly more liberals than conservatives take advantage of their right to have abortions. And I would guess that there is a correlation between the parents’ politics and the child’s. Ergo, if abortion is legal, future liberals tend to be killed in the womb at a higher rate than future conservatives (and libertarians?). Hey, I’m not saying I’m pro-abortion, but silver lining and all that, you know?

I like Microsoft’s new statement of their Mission and Values. Okay, maybe it’s a bit puffy, but it’s aspirational and not too buzz-wordy, so I like that. But what struck me as I read it–could you ever imagine, in your wildest fantasy, any government even attempting to promulgate something like this, with a straight face?

Chesterton famously said in his essay The Diabolist that “there is one real difference between men and women; that women prefer to talk in twos, while men prefer to talk in threes.” I’m not sure I agree with this, but everyone seems to think this is some profound insight. It’s about as scientific as the stupid expression that people die “in threes”. Yeah, you can count them 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3, if you want. Wow. Profound numerology.

I do like the longer paragraph though from which the quote is taken: “I value that time [at an art school], in short, because it made me acquainted with a good representative number of blackguards. In this connection there are two very curious things which the critic of human life may observe. The first is the fact that there is one real difference between men and women; that women prefer to talk in twos, while men prefer to talk in threes. The second is that when you find (as you often do) three young cads and idiots going about together and getting drunk together every day you generally find that one of the three cads and idiots is (for some extraordinary reason) not a cad and not an idiot. In these small groups devoted to a drivelling dissipation there is almost always one man who seems to have condescended to his company; one man who, while he can talk a foul triviality with his fellows, can also talk politics with a Socialist, or philosophy with a Catholic.”

I confess I don’t quite undestand the ending of this essay. Would someone please explain it to me. To what was it he referred in the closing line: “God help him, I know the road he went; but I have never known, or even dared to think, what was that place at which he stopped and refrained.” What was the road he went? What was the place at which the Diabolist stopped and refrained?

This why I hate poetry, and dislike lots of English prose. Meandering, vague, faux-deep, hide the ball all the time. Just SAY IT!

A recent US patent (Delphion version) covers a WOODEN STICK or TREE BRANCH for a dog to play with. I am not, repeat, not, making this up. More ridiculous/obscure patents.

Interesting reading: Jude Wanniski’s recent July 23 2002 Polyconomics Memo on the Margin, about his standing offer to pay $1000 “to anyone who could provide evidence that Min. Farrakhan had ever said anything disrespectful of Judaism or the Jewish people.” This memo details an email exchange between Wanniski and Joshua Muravchik about whether Muravchik has earned the $1000.

I detailed a recent debate between the proper view on the state, war, etc., between J. Neil Schulman, J.H. Huebert, et al. in recent posts. For subsequent email debate by libertarians from both sides of the divide, see the WarLibertarians Yahoo Group that I started recently. And Joe Stromberg has a great new column out on this, “Liberventionism II: The Flight from Theory“.

Previous posts:

• The Decline of Fee?
• The Decline of FEE–Part II: Schulman’s Reply

In my last post about FEE and J.H. Huebert, I criticized J. Neil Schulman’s critique of Huebert. Neil has sent a long letter in reply, which I have posted here with his permission. I’ll let readers judge Neil’s letter on its own merits, for now, as I have bread to earn, and not much time for a tit-for-tat reply sanitized for public consumption.

A few short comments for now: I am glad to see he makes it clear that I was wrong in suspecting his monarchy comment (see last post) was a jab at Lew Rockwell et al. That’s good, because LewRockwell and Hans Hoppe are the best of libertarians, IMHO. And, for the record, of course I realize Neil is a libertarian; and I have no idea what this “read someone out of the movement” stuff is about. I think one source of the confusion is Neil seems to think being anti-war is the same as pacifism. I am not a pacifist; aggressors deserve to be countered with severe retaliatory and retributive force. One need not be a pacifist in order to oppose the warring actions of our imperialist-aggressive federal government. Apparently, Neil is way more into this “true patriot” “America is the best country” rah rah stuff than I am. ‘Nuff said (for now).