I used to publish articles, columns, and letters to the editor in high school, in local newspapers (in Baton Rouge) and then, while at LSU (1983-91), in the LSU Daily Reveille. I was a columnist for a while at the Reveille, while in engineering and law school, and occasionally published pro-free market type columns. But they were not all political. I was quite the smart-ass when I was a young pup.
Well–today I was walking the dogs and saw a bullfrog hiding in a drain pipe in our yard, so took our 8 year old son out to see it. We were talking about him and he said “now I have a pet frog. … what should we name him?” I said, “Hmm, how about ‘Amphibeneur’?” He said “why”? So I ended up relating to him a smart-ass letter to the editor I published back in college, mocking a weepy “my cat has died please be careful not to run over cats everyone!” letter to the editor in the Reveille, in which I made up a story about my own pet frog, Amphibeneur (short for Amphibian Entrepreneur), who was killed by a vicious cat. Here it is.
John Stossel had a panel of libertarians discussing topics from Walter Block’s Defending the Undefendable. Stossel said they wanted to have Block on, but he was out of the country and unavailable, so instead the show featured Reason’s Nick Gillespie, David Boaz of the Cato Institute, and Alex Tabarrok of George Mason University, who “made the moral and economic case for often-vilified practices ranging from ticket scalping to human-organ sales to the creation of private currencies.”
Nina Paley posted on Google+ recently “an incomplete list of places I’ve spoken/lectured/presented at professionally”… And it’s quite impressive! I thought I would do the same, covering forums, publications, journals, publishers, venues, etc. I have published, lectured, taught, etc. over the last 18 or so years (since 1994, roughly), dividing it into my legal and libertarian worlds, and including also journals and publishers of written works:
I was a guest last night on FreeTalkLive (Sunday, Aug. 21, 2011), discussing intellectual property with Sunday hosts Mark Edge and Stephanie. We talked for about an hour and a half, from 7pm-830pm EDT and had a good, wide-ranging discussion. A few callers called in near the end. This was the FTL debut on XM satellite radio’s “Extreme Talk”, XM 165. The show is now available on the podcast feed here (local MP3) (KOL082).
André Roberfroid, President of Association Montessori Internationale
I’ve discussed my thoughts on the Montessori educational method previously (see my article Montessori, Peace, and Libertarianism; also my posts Montessori and “Unschooling”; Bullying and Libertarianism; Libertarian Parenting–A Freedomain Radio Conversation). Last week the excellent KERA radio program “Think” had a great interview with André Roberfroid, President of Association Montessori Internationale, about the Montessori method: “Education Today and Tomorrow.” He does a good job of explaining the beauty and benefits of the Montessori approach (though he does have some confused notions about expanding the public school sector; these confused political views, it seems to me, are orthogonal to his educational ideas, and can be ignored). The interview is here; and the podcast can be found on iTunes here.
According to the attorney who sent it to me: this was a voicemail message “that an associate at Winston & Strawn left for an associate at Latham. Latham is representing a borrower in a real estate transaction and W&S; represents the lender. I don’t know what correspondence preceded the voicemail but as I understand it, W&S; asked Latham to make some cosmetic changes to mortgages a day before closing and Latham responded by email that they thought the changes were unnecessary. The response from W&S; is pretty unbelievable–a pretty abusive voicemail. This is soon to be part of law firm urban legend along with that summer associate from Skadden [I earlier guessed–wrongly–that they meant here Tucker Max’s hilarious story, “The Now Infamous Tucker Max Charity Auction Debacle”, about how Max got fired when he was a summer associate at the California law firm Fenwick & West during the dot-com boom times –SK]–it’s already making it’s way around the email circuit. Enjoy!”
And along those lines, an oldie but a goodie: Voicemail message [audio], with increasingly frustrated obscenities, purportedly left by trademark applicant/appellant with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB); resulting Final Order concerning disciplinary action of the attorney (linked here).
Update: Here is an official Response from an Examiner at the patent office employing obscenity.
Associate’s Foulmouthed Voicemail Makes the Rounds on the Internet
August 24, 2004
Re my previous post–this article appeared today in New York Lawyer, listing my blog as a source of the voicemail left by Winston & Strawn associate Ankur Gupta [voicemail here]. I despise incompetence so actually tend to side with Gupta.
Some excerpts from the article:
An expletive-laden voice-mail message, reproduced on blog KinsellaLaw.com, left by an associate at one law firm for a colleague at another is making the rounds in cyberspace, with young lawyers seizing on the message as a symbol of declining civility within the profession.
In the message, Winston & Strawn associate Ankur Gupta in Chicago berates an associate in the New York office of Latham & Watkins for apparently complaining about changes Mr. Gupta and his colleagues requested on a mortgage document. Mr. Gupta tells his fellow lawyer that he should save his “[f**king] breath” and that if he continues to complain about the changes, Mr. Gupta will make his “life on this deal very unpleasant” by involving his client. The Winston & Strawn associate concludes by advising the Latham associate that if he will not act as a “monkey [f**king] scribe,” his work will be given to a secretary at Winston & Strawn.
Forwarded to lawyers across the nation, the message has unleashed a firestorm of Internet message board commentary.
In my view, all this noise about “the decline in civility” is part and parcel of lawyers’ attempt to keep their profession licensed so as to keep out competition. It is arrogance to believe civility is more the domain of attorneys than “normal” people. [continue reading…]
“Kensella [sic] is an unhinged and dishonest bit of nastiness, and he deserves to be shunned by all reasonable people — not treated as a civilized interlocutor.”
I can’t say I’m very bothered by this: this is the same person who officially announces her change in allegiance from David Kelley to Leonard Peikoff (both the decision, and the Official Public Announcement, is enough to raise eyebrows), and who writes:
On this Memorial Day, I would like to honor the three men of the American Civil War who understood the terrible need for total war: President Abraham Lincoln, General Ulysses S. Grant, and General William T. Sherman. Their vigorous prosecution of the war preserved the Union, the very first nation founded on the principles of individual rights — and, at the time, the only such nation. In so doing, they ended the most loathsome violation of rights ever known to man: chattel slavery. Without them, without the brave Union soldiers who fought under them, America would not exist today.
So thank you, Mssrs. Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman. We are forever in your debt.
Following up on my earlier post, several readers wrote me about my query about the Randian comments that a large government is okay in some cases. Jeff Keller writes:
I think the originator of that quote was Roger Donway (from David Kelley’s Atlas Society/TOC, not the Ayn Rand Institute). He wrote…
“Limited government” means a government restricted to certain purposes, namely, the defense of individual rights; “small government” means a government that absorbs a small percentage of the gross national product. If a country has been invaded, its government might absorb 50 percent or more of the nation’s product to mount a defense—and yet remain a “limited government” in the relevant sense. Conversely, a government that abandons its military and police missions might spend very little of the national output, but if it spends that little on health, education, and welfare, it is not a “limited government.”
I recall hearing David Kelley make a similar point: that smallness of government isn’t the primary concern, but whether it functions within its legitimate authority (Kelley, et al.’s view of legitimacy, of course). That was at the 1999 TOC Summer Seminar, which I attended. I think it was during a debate Kelley had with Randy Barnett over anarchism vs. minarchism, but I wouldn’t swear to it.
In The Libertarians’ Albatross, Butler Shaffer recalls John Hospers who “recently wrote that ‘voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do,’ and that ‘a continued Bush presidency . . . might well succeed in preserving Western civilization.’ Kerry ‘will weaken our military establishment,’ he went on, quoting favorably from a statement made by Rand, in 1962, to the effect that paying 80% for taxes was justified ‘if you need it for defense.'”
As Stan Lee used to say: ’nuff said.
Update: See also Anthony Gregory’s skewering of Randian statism (including the 80% tax remark) in The Ideal Randian State.
If we go to war with Russia, I hope the “innocent” are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren’t many innocent people there—those who do exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. Nobody has to put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self-defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent.
It’s remarkable–given that Rand was such an outspoken proponent of individual rights–how many people she would appear to view as having no rights or radically curtailed rights: “savages” like the Native Americans and other nomads (so it was okay for Americans to kill them and conquer them), and Arabs (so American oil companies “really” owned the oil their technology helped discover under Arabian soil); Germans and Japanese during wartime; “innocent” Russian citizens during the Cold War; and who knows what rights she would have attributed to anarcho-libertarians (I think she called us the “hippies of the right“), draft dodgers and pacifists!
I stumbled across Rand’s observations on war while looking for a comment I’ve read in the past but am now unable to locate. The comment was by an Objectivist, perhaps Peikoff or Binswanger, and went something like this: Libertarians are wrong to favor “small” government; in certain situations, e.g. war or defense from an invasion, it could be appropriate for the government to consume more than half the GDP, if necessary. (If you know who made the comment or its location, please let me know.)
Recently there fell into my lap 80 pages of fascinating correspondence between two of the most influential libertarian intellectuals of our time: the recently-deceased John Hospers, author of Libertarianism: a political philosophy for tomorrow and the first presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party (in 1972), and Morris Tannehill, the reclusive co-author (with his wife Linda) of the provocative and influential anarcho-libertarian book The Market for Liberty. 1
Nicholas Dykes sent the manuscript to me earlier this year; it contains the mostly typewritten correspondence between Tannehill and Hospers from August 1970 to November 1971. Hospers died earlier this year, and according to Dykes:
I think Morris died years ago in a car crash, but I’m not sure about that. There was an article in Liberty about him and Linda, in the 90s I think. Linda retired to New Mexico and made sandals.
I have not been able to verify this about Tannehill, nor find the article in Liberty–if anyone knows more please add to the comments or email me, and I’ll update this post. [Update: Jesse Walker informs me that the piece Dykes had in mind is probably “Freedom Now,” by Linda [formerly Tannehill] Locke, from the March 1991 issue of Liberty.]
Hospers sent this all to Dykes a while back because he liked one of Dykes’s books (Old Nick’s Guide to Happiness), and gave Dykes permission to publish the papers. He considered doing a book but sent them to me, as editor of Libertarian Papers, to handle as I thought fit. I may have the material converted to text and copyedited and published in Libertarian Papers or otherwise at some point, but saw no reason to withhold the raw material. So, here it is. Enjoy!
From the site of my publisher, Quid Pro Books, information about the release this month of my new book, Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary (with Gregory Rome; Quid Pro Books 2011). It’s available now at Amazon in paper and kindle formats, and in hardback later this month. Also available in other ebook formats. (Additional information at the dictionary’s website, Civil-Law-Dictionary.com.)
With obscure terms like emphyteusis and jactitation, the language of Louisiana’s civil law can sometimes be confusing for students and even for seasoned practitioners. But the Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary can help. It defines every word and phrase contained in the index to the Louisiana Civil Code, plus many more–in clear and concise language–and provides current citations to the relevant statutes, code articles, and cases. Soon available in paperback, hardback and ebook formats linked below. The dictionary’s dedicated website is here.
Whether you are a student, researcher, lawyer, or judge, if you deal with Louisiana and its laws, this volume will proveindispensable. It is also a valuable resource for notaries and paralegal assistants. No doubt common law practitioners in other states, too, will find ready uses for a dictionary that translates civil law terminology into familiar concepts; they will know how ‘naked ownership’ is different from ‘usufruct.’ And since the civil law dominates the world’s legal systems, this book will find a home with libraries and scholars anywhere there is a need to compare civil law terms with those of the common law.
Quality ebook formatting from Quid Pro Books features active contents, linked notes and URLs, and hundreds of linked cross-references for ready association of related topics. Print editions are available of this valuable resource, yet the ebook format is not just a textual replication of the print book or a PDF; instead, the ebook is carefully designed to take full advantage of the digital ereader’s optimal arrangements and hyperlinks.
“Rome and Kinsella have done a huge service to legal scholarship by assembling the Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary — a splendid resource for those seeking to understand the rich vocabulary of Louisiana law.”
— Bryan A. Garner, President, LawProse, Inc.; and Editor in Chief, Black’s Law Dictionary
“For ready reference on the desk or in a personal or law firm library, in the office of a civilian of any walk of practice or intellectual endeavor, this enormously helpful dictionary is a must. This scholarly reference is essential to the study of the civil law tradition; the Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary serves as a gateway to understanding the civil law system embraced by the majority of legal systems in the world.”
— J. Lanier Yeates, Member, Gordon Arata McCollam Duplantis & Eagan, LLC
Also available directly on Apple iBooks and iTunes for iPad and iPhone, as well as Kindle and Nook apps.
Available in paperback edition, including from our eStore page with fulfillment by Amazon; at the general Amazon site; and at other booksellers. Library-quality hardcover edition also available from Amazon, B&N, Dawson Books, Ingram catalog and Baker & Taylor (listed in the library catalogs as of Aug. 15). Please contact us for discounts on bulk adoptions.
ISBNs include: 9781610270830 (ePub) and 9781610270878 (hardcover)
I majored in electrical engineering at LSU from 1983 to 1987. I had to take one economics course, my very first semester, which I ended up making an A in. But I did not like it. Never did like the idea of supply and demand curves, “elasticity” etc. I don’t think I had read much Austrian economics yet, though I had read a good deal of Ayn Rand’s nonfiction before I started college, and might have already read Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson. Maybe that is what turned me off to the conventional approach taught in Econ 2030.
I remember vividly that when the Phillips Curve was presented I knew something was wrong with mainstream economics. Here was a curve showing an inverse relationship between inflation and employment. That can’t be right, I thought–suppose all the unemployed people in the country died overnight. Most of them are unproductive or on welfare, so their loss would not harm the economy, so why would it make inflation go up? By my pro-capitalist lights, a free market could have zero inflation and almost full employment. I told the teacher my problem with the Phillips Curve; he explained that if all the unemployed people died, so that there was technically now 0% unemployment, the curve would “shift” to account for the new situation. Something like that. But that is cheating, just moving the goal post. It means it’s not really a curve, not really a relationship that explains anything.
When I discovered Austrian economics–mainly of the Misesian, Rothbardian, and Hoppean variety, I started to love economics.
In 1977 the US enacted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which makes it a crime for American citizens and businesses to bribe foreign public officials for business purposes. It also imposes certain accounting standards on public US companies, which I wrote about in a 1994 legal article, “The Accounting Provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.” The hypocrisy of the law is blinding: it’s okay for the state to bribe (and extort and coerce) private business by means of threats, subsidies, tax breaks, and protectionist legislation; it’s okay for businesses to bribe elected officials (campaign contributions); and it’s okay for the US central state to bribe foreign governments; and it’s okay for US companies to be forced to pay bribes in the form of taxes, that are less than the amount of bribes they would have to pay to foreign officials. But it’s not okay for US companies to bribe foreign officials–even if this is customary and essential to “doing business” in that country, and even if this puts American businesses at a competitive disadvantage with companies from other countries that do not prohibit such bribery–some countries even permit such bribes to be reported as an expense for tax purposes.
Paying bribes and being subject to this kind of extortion is just part of what it takes to do business in many countries. This might sound awful, but the truth is that such payments are often less than the companies would be paying to the tax man in the US, which runs a similar kind of extortion scam but with legal cover.
In fact, it was the Bananagate scandal (in which Chiquita Brands had bribed the President of Honduras to lower taxes) which helped to spur passage of the FCPA.
Naturally American businesses squealed at the competitive disadvantage this law imposed on them. So of course, instead of repealing this ghastly law, the US used its legislative imperialism to force other countries to adopt similar laws (it also twists the arms of other countries in a number of areas, including IP (see my post Intellectual Property Imperialism), antitrust law, central banking policies, oil & gas ownership by the state, environmental standards, labor standards, tax levels and policy, and so on). It did this mainly by pushing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, now ratified by 38 states which are required by the Convention to implement FCPA style laws nationally. The UK has just done so in The UK Bribery Act, which just came into force this month. According to this Freshfields release, the UK Bribery Act is “the most far-reaching bribery legislation in the world.” The spread of such laws prove the Whig Theory of History is wrong…
US bureaucrats amaze me. So many of them apparently have the moral dignity to refuse a direct bribe, but when it comes to attacking and imposing a frivolous and useless burdens on otherwise honest citizens, they think nothing of it. Not to mention their elected bosses, take regular publicly documented campaign contributions.
Makes me wonder if Mexico isn’t more free than the USA is. Even though they take bribes, it’s almost sure to cost less than the US regulations and taxes, and their official government spending is less than 20% of GDP.
You should see the gift rules for federal workers. Uncle Sam will throw a hissy fit if a worker accepts a $21 shirt, but allowing Congressmen to collect $5,000 per donor is no big deal.
Excellent article Stephan.
The hypocrisy of the US Government in this area is so brazen.
I watched “Frontline Season 27, Ep. 11 “Black Money”” (on Amazon Instant Video).
They were complaining about a Saudi Prince who was using a government plane for personal use! His major “crime” was to paint the plane in Dallas Cowboy colors! (I don’t think he used it to play golf or visit people to collect bribes – err “campaign contributions”.)
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
US bureaucrats amaze me. So many of them apparently have the moral dignity to refuse a direct bribe, but when it comes to attacking and imposing a frivolous and useless burdens on otherwise honest citizens, they think nothing of it. Not to mention their elected bosses, take regular publicly documented campaign contributions.
Makes me wonder if Mexico isn’t more free than the USA is. Even though they take bribes, it’s almost sure to cost less than the US regulations and taxes, and their official government spending is less than 20% of GDP.
You should see the gift rules for federal workers. Uncle Sam will throw a hissy fit if a worker accepts a $21 shirt, but allowing Congressmen to collect $5,000 per donor is no big deal.
Excellent article Stephan.
The hypocrisy of the US Government in this area is so brazen.
I watched “Frontline Season 27, Ep. 11 “Black Money”” (on Amazon Instant Video).
They were complaining about a Saudi Prince who was using a government plane for personal use! His major “crime” was to paint the plane in Dallas Cowboy colors! (I don’t think he used it to play golf or visit people to collect bribes – err “campaign contributions”.)