I was a guest on the Gene Basler show tonight (formerly called anarcho-environmentalism) discussing a variety of anarcho-libertarian matters–environmentalism, nuclear power, state propaganda in government schools, class action lawsuits, reparations, how to achieve an anarcho-libertarian society, animal rights, positive rights and obligations, forced heirship, and so on (local MP3 file).
Today is my wife’s and my 17th wedding anniversary. We dated about 8 years so we’ve been together a quarter century now. Long time. I’ve long disliked artificial gift-giving obligations like Secretary’s Day, Christmas, birthdays, and so on–especially nowadays when we all just buy ourselves what we want during the year anyway. My wife works hard and has less time for fretting about all such things than most people. I remember about 14 years ago, when we lived in Philly, on our anniversary I gave my wife a Happy Anniversary Card. She sheepishly looked up–she’d forgotten to get me anything… so she just handed the card back to me–regifted it in front of my eyes. I thought it was sweet.
Since then we’ve managed to unshackle ourselves from some of these obligations. Not all, but some. I’ve long despised the stupid pre-written Hallmark type cards–so stupid. When I do have to buy a card, I prefer to buy a blank one with a picture or painting on the cover, and write my own damn note.
Anyway, this morning, I had a nurse come by the hizzy at 7 am for a physical for a life insurance policy. So I was sitting at the kitchen table, giving blood, etc., answering questions from this cute little nursey. Cindy emerges from the bedroom, on the hunt for coffee. I said, “Good morning.” Then, as I was looking at the insurance paperwork, I saw the date, and remembered, so said, “Oh, Happy Anniversary.” She says, “Happy Anniversary,” and comes over and gives me a kiss. Then I said, “I didn’t get you anything.” Cindy said, “I didn’t get you anything either. Would you like me to fix you a coffee?” I said, “As soon as I give the urine sample and finish giving blood, yes.”
The coolest thing about this–aside from not having to bother getting cards or gifts–is that it drives my male friends with normal, high-maintenance wives, crazy. They just shake their heads in jealousy.
So this is pathetic. Cindy and I both totally forgot it was our anniversary. We have never been that sentimental about this artifical stuff anyway, and anyway count our time together (more like 29 years) instead of the “wedding date” anyway. but we both totally forgot. I check into FB this morning and it reminds me of this and I’m like…. oh no. CAlled wife at work, fearing that she left angry since I had said nothing, but she had forgotten too. She said she is several pounds bigger than on the wedding date, so I have profited b/c now there is more woman to love. haha
People want to share files. There is this much file sharing going on for a reason. It’s what people want. Fighting piracy is fighting human nature. This is a battle no one can win. Getting your undies in a bunch at the thought of someone copying your ebook is a waste of a good ulcer. Worry about some problem that eventually will be solved. Like world hunger. Or cancer. Or war. Those will be conquered before file sharing is….
There is ZERO reliable evidence that file-sharing hurts sales. A shared file does not equal a lost sale, any more than someone reading a library book is a lost sale.
Q: But Joe, if everyone steals your ebooks, how will you make money?
A: Show me an artist bankrupted by piracy, and we’ll revisit this question.
Q: No, seriously, in a future where everything is free, how will…
A: We’re not in a future where everything is free. But I’ll play the “let’s pretend” game. Let’s pretend that all ebooks are free. How will writers make money? The same way all media makes money. Advertising, merchandising, and licensing.
Q: But I don’t want ads in ebooks.
A: I don’t want ads in anything. But that’s how capitalism works. Deal with it.
1. Copyright is unenforceable in a digital world. Period. Exclamation point. At no time in history has any individual, company, or industry been able to stop file sharing. No country or law has been able to stop it. No technology has been able to stop it. Which brings us to…
2. People want to share files. There is this much file sharing going on for a reason. It’s what people want. Fighting piracy is fighting human nature. This is a battle no one can win. Getting your undies in a bunch at the thought of someone copying your ebook is a waste of a good ulcer. Worry about some problem that eventually will be solved. Like world hunger. Or cancer. Or war. Those will be conquered before file sharing is.
I’ve been enjoying your commentary on various Twit network podcasts for a while now. On the recent MacBreak Weekly, I found your exchange with Merlin Mann about open source interesting. I detect a whiff of libertarianism in your remark about the force of the state being used to enforce taxes–which I appreciate, as I’m a libertarian myself. I’m also a patent attorney and have written extensively about why patent and copyright law are anti-free market and unlibertarian (my reasons may be found at The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide, available at https://stephankinsella.com/publications/#IP).
You are right, in a way, that the free market will come into play here–but the power of patent and copyright holders is not a free market power. It is an artificial and unjust monopoly given to them by the state, which they then use in the courts to get the force of the state (as with tax collection) to extort money from third parties. So, given this monopoly power, yes, the free market will temper somewhat how much they can extort from people, but still, it’s unjust and greatly distorts the market. It also leads to hostility against the free market when people wrongly identify this state monopoly granting practice as part of the free market.
That said, I agree with you that there is no “religious” reason for a given individual or firm to use open source over non-open — whatever works better and is the better deal for you, of course. And in fact the “open source” model is not without problems: it also relies on copyright, and has insidious aspects — that’s one reason I, as an anti-copyright type, prefer public domain or creative commons attribution only instead of the share-alike/GNU type model (which I explain in Copyright is very sticky!, Eben Moglen and Leftist Opposition to Intellectual Property, and Leftist Attacks on the Google Book Settlement).
As Guido Hülsmann and I observe in our Introduction to Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Mises Institute, 2009), Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe is without a doubt one of the most important libertarian scholars of our time: “He has made pioneering contributions to sociology, economics, philosophy, and history. He is the dean of the present-day Austrian School of economics, and is famous as a libertarian philosopher. He and his writings have inspired scholars all over the world to follow in his footsteps and to provide a scientific foundation for individual freedom and a free society.” Hoppe is beloved and admired by libertarians worldwide for his tireless work in the service of liberty and his prodigious scholarly output–his publications have been translated into over 21 languages; and his international Property and Freedom Society, founded in 2006, draws an increasingly impressive audience at each annual meeting (the next one starts in about a week, at which I am speaking). 1 And yet, as his mentor and friend Murray Rothbard, the greatest libertarian thinker ever, noted in his 1990 article Hoppephobia:
Although he is an amiable man personally, Hoppe’s written work seems to have the remarkable capacity to send some readers up the wall, blood pressure soaring, muttering and chewing the carpet. It is not impolite attacks on critics that does it. Perhaps the answer is Hoppe’s logical and deductive mode of thought and writing, demonstrating the truth of his propositions and showing that those who differ are often trapped in self-contradiction and self-refutation.
Here, Rothbard was talking about Hoppe’s “argumentation ethics” defense of libertarian rights, which drove many libertarian scholars bonkers.
Another controversy erupted in 2004 when, during a money and banking class lecture, Professor Hoppe illustrated the concept of “time preference” by noting that people who have children tend to develop longer time horizons (they have to plan ahead for their kids); and that, in comparison, certain demographic groups that tend not to have children, such as homosexuals, the very old, etc., could be expected not to develop as as long an economic time horizon as those that do have children. In other words, because homosexuals don’t have children, ceteris paribus, they will have higher time preference. Now whether this is empirically true or not is not the point; it was simply an illustration of the concept of time preference. And yet a student took offense, resulting in sanctions by UNLV and Hoppe’s battle with the thought police–which he ultimately won (see Hoppe, My Battle with the Thought Police, Mises Daily (April 12, 2005); Stephan Kinsella & Jeff Tucker, The Ordeal of Hoppe, The Free Market (April 2005); Jeff Tucker, Idiot Patrol, Mises Blog (Mar. 2, 2005); and the Hans-Hermann Hoppe Victory Blog, signed by over 1800 supporters). [continue reading…]
I had lunch a while back with a Christian guy, who insisted there is an “abstract” realm, God, etc. He had a convoluted “proof” of God’s existence (and the existence of this whole Abstract Realm) based on … the existence of language and information. He basically argued that there are certain problems that cannot be solved without assuming his ontology: the fact that there is life in the natural world … means that there is information … means that there is “language”…. implying that there is more than just natural-world causality… implying that there are these other realms and ontological breakdowns. In other words, if you have “meaning” you have to have some intelligent being that imparts the meaning; and language has meaning, by definition, right? And there is a “language” to life itself, right? Right? So… the natural world has “meaning” and “thus” there must have been a God who “authored” this meaning or language.
Anyway, I tried to clarify his picture of reality, to pin him down, to get him to see how ridiculous this is. He refused to include “God” as part of “the universe” even though it’s “all that exists,” so I had to create new terms. I made this drawing of “The Ontology of the Omniverse,” and provided him with a description, an edited version of which is below. He tentatively agreed with my description, but didn’t seem interested in discussing it further. [continue reading…]
Well, back in 1995, that is 🙂 See his post Bye-Bye for IP, an excellent short critique of “intellectual property.” As I noted in the comments, I think I tied him in coming to my senses about IP: I believe my first published piece against IP was in 1995 as well in the IOS Journal. There may have been something earlier; I’m not sure. I may have presented something a bit earlier at some Federalist Society meetings in Philadelphia; the next thing I can find that I published was in 1998 for the Pennsylvania Bar Association Intellectual Property Newsletter (later republished in a Federalist Society online forum).
The 1995 publication followed on the heels of my taking the patent bar exam in 1994. I had been thinking about IP for a long time, since 1987 or so at least, because Rand’s defense of IP had always bugged me. I started thinking about it harder in 1992 or so, when I started practicing IP law.
Just got back from a very nice beach wedding in Fort Walton, for my niece Emily Turner, who married Steven Crowe. It was at The Breakers; we stayed nearby at Waterscape, where Ethan had a lot of fun on the lazy river, and also with my parents, who joined us. Pix and movies can be found at my smugmug gallery here; the movies are also embedded below:
I’m no fan of electoral politics, and never did think Rand Paul was a consistent libertarian or even as libertarian as his father, Ron Paul—though his recent remarks on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 make me think he may be more libertarian than he feels he can admit publicly. I don’t agree with many of his stated positions, but of late he’s being attacked for what is most libertarian: his view that private businesses have a right to discriminate on their own property (see, e.g., attacks by the monstrous Paul Krugman and an editorial from the New York Times).
But there can be no doubt that the provisions of the law that prohibit racial and other discrimination by private businesses in employment or accommodation (such as hotels and restaurants) are manifestly unlibertarian and unjust. Sadly, however, some libertarians actually endorse the state’s infringement on property rights as embodied in this law. Most of the prominent libertarian defenders of the unlibertarian aspects of the CRA1964 seem to be associated with the Cato Institute, and include Brink Lindsey (see Cato Scholar Scolds Rand Paul, Gives OK to Soup Nazi; Lindsay’s stance is perhaps not surprising given his pro-war views), David Bernstein, Richard Epstein, and Roger Pilon (see my post Libertarian Centralists—Pilon’s stance is not too surprising, given his defense (archive) of the Police America Act). (Julian Sanchez, in a somewhat maundering article, seems to weakly defend Paul, but I’m not sure.) I don’t know if such a major deviation from libertarianism arises from shaky foundations (such as utilitarianism), naivety about the ability of the central state to do justice, or fear of a politically-correct backlash, but it’s pretty sad that a leftist is better on this issue than some libertarians–I have in mind Robert Scheer, who gave a surprisingly good and quasi-libertarian defense of Rand Paul on KCRW’s Left, Right and Center last week–he tears apart the Rand-bashing of his co-hosts Ariana Huffington (who drops the PC racism junk) and Tony Blankley (who says he agrees “intellectually” with Paul but still calls him a kook); see also Scheer’s article Who’s Afraid of Rand Paul? (Even John Fund and Aayan Hirsi Ali, both who seem libertarianish, gave a decent defense of Paul on the latest Bill Maher show, if memory serves). See also the partial transcription of Scheer’s remarks here: [continue reading…]
As I noted previously, I was interviewed recently for a promising new documentary by lawyer-philosopher David Koepsell and filmmaker Taylor Roesch, “Who Owns You?” (Here’s the first trailer, on Vimeo.) Here’s an email I just received from Taylor:
Hello Family and Friends,
As you may or may not know, for the last eight months, I have been filming a documentary on the subject of human gene patenting with David Koepsell, philosopher and author of the book Who Owns You? The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Our Genes. We have made great progress since last October, filming numerous interviews with genetic counselors, patent attorneys, and the one and only James Watson. Currently, we have over 35 hours of footage and expect to film another 35 hours this summer. Below is a link to the trailer for the documentary:
Our film has nicely dove-tailed with the recent court case between the Myriad Genetics, patent holder of genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 (which contribute to breast cancer), and the ACLU as well as numerous individuals and clinical organizations. At the beginning of April, the honorable Judge Sweets of the Federal District Court in New York, ruled in favor of the ACLU, making Myriad’s patents invalid. Initially, this was great news! Not only had the ACLU won this case, but my film had an ending. My celebration was premature because Myriad has decided to appeal the decision. The case is currently in the Appellate Court and both sides intend on taking it to the US Supreme Court. It will be years before a final decision is reached. If we can spotlight this issue in the public square, it will help build public support for the lower court’s decision, and perhaps the Appellate Court and Supreme Court will uphold the recent ruling.
But there is more at stake than this one case, over 20% of the human genome has been patented. While the ACLU case highlights this problem, there are still many questions about whether it will invalidate all of these sorts of gene patents.
We have some great people willing to help us as you can see from our trailer but there are still a lot of costs involved in finishing the film. We need additional funds to conduct more interviews in Chicago, Washington DC, Berkeley CA, and The Netherlands. After we finish filming this summer, post production will begin and a final product should be ready by December 2010. We have financed much of the work ourselves, but we will need at least $3,000.00 to complete this important film. Any money you can contribute will go a long way to getting this documentary done and this issue heard. Please feel free to send this email along to anyone you think might be interested in helping us out.
Below is a link to our Kickstarter website where you can easily donate to our project:
Latest notable terms from this and last week’s Slate Culture Gabfest (feel free to email me suggestions or leave them in the comments to the main page, which keeps a running collection of the terms from this series of posts). [continue reading…]
Interesting column by Oliver Burkeman in The Guardian (8 May 2010), “Are you an Asker or a Guesser?” The “Asker-Guesser” paradigm seems like bogus pop-analysis, but the first part, I like: just say no and don’t give a reason; giving a reason invites negotiation or argument. I like the ways of saying no: “I’m afraid that won’t be possible”, or “Oh dear, I find I’m watching television that night”, or “I can’t, because I’m unable to.” Here’s the opening:
The advice of etiquette experts on dealing with unwanted invitations, or overly demanding requests for favours, has always been the same: just say no. That may have been a useless mantra in the war on drugs, but in the war on relatives who want to stay for a fortnight, or colleagues trying to get you to do their work, the manners guru Emily Post‘s formulation – “I’m afraid that won’t be possible” – remains the gold standard. Excuses merely invite negotiation. The comic retort has its place (Peter Cook: “Oh dear, I find I’m watching television that night”), and I’m fond of the tautological non-explanation (“I can’t, because I’m unable to”). But these are variations on a theme: the best way to say no is to say no. Then shut up.
This is a lesson we’re unable to learn, however, judging by the scores of books promising to help us. The Power Of A Positive No, How To Say No Without Feeling Guilty, The Book Of No… Publishers, certainly, seem unable to refuse. (Two recent books addressing the topic are Marshall Goldsmith’s Mojo, and Womenomics, by Claire Shipman and Katty Kay.) This is the “disease to please” – a phrase that doesn’t make grammatical sense, but rhymes, giving it instant pop-psychology cachet. There are certainly profound issues here, of self-esteem, guilt etcetera. But it’s also worth considering whether part of the problem doesn’t originate in a simple misunderstanding between two types of people: Askers and Guessers.
Dear Mr. 
Recent Comments