All Keynesians conceive of the State as a great potential reservoir of benefits, ready to be tapped. The prime concern for the Keynesian is to decide on economic policy — what should be the economic ends of the State and what means should the State adopt to achieve them? The State is, of course, always synonymous with "we": What should "we" do to insure full employment? is a favorite query. (Whether the "we" refers to the "people" or to the Keynesians themselves is never quite made clear.)
"Essentially, economic analysis consists of: (1) an understanding of the categories of action and an
understanding of the meaning of a change in values, costs, technological knowledge, etc.; (2) a description of a
situation in which these categories assume concrete meaning, where definite people are identified as
actors with definite objects specified as their means of action, with definite goals identified as values and definite things specified as costs;
and (3) a deduction of the consequences that result from the performance of some specified action in this situation,
or of the consequences that result for an actor if this situation is changed in a specified way. And this deduction
must yield a priori-valid conclusions, provided there is no flaw in the very process of deduction and the situation
and the change introduced into it being given, and a priori—valid conclusions about reality if the situation
and situation—change, as described, can themselves be identified as real, because then their validity would ultimately
go back to the indisputable validity of the categories of action."
--Hans-Hermann Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, p. 118-19
"For it would be an absurd undertaking to banish from the language of
economic theory every manner of speaking that is not literally correct; it
would be sheer pedantry to proscribe every figure of speech, particularly
since we could not say the hundredth part of what we have to say, if we
refused ever to take recourse to a metaphor. One requirement is essential,
that economic theory avoid the error of confusing a practical habit,
indulged in for the sake of expediency, with scientific truth."
--Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, (1881). Whether legal rights and relationships are economic goods.
In H. Sennholz (Ed.), Shorter classics of Böhm-Bawerk, Volume I. Spring Mills, PA: Libertarian Press, 1962, p. 135
"How can the great suck of self ever hope to be a fat cat dozing in the sun?"
--Walker Percy
"A Volvo is a beautifully engineered, well-built statement that the owner has the soul of a dung beetle."
--Fred Reed
"The total complex of the rules according to which those at the helm employ compulsion and coercion is called law. Yet the characteristic feature of the state is not these rules, as such, but the application or threat of violence."
--Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government
"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."
--Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
"I never knew anyone who collected anything who was good for anything else."
--anon.
"The matter does not appear to me now as it appears to have appeared to me then."
--Baron Bramwell, in Andrews v. Styrap (Ex. 1872) 26 L.T.R. (N.S.) 704, 706
"Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things - trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.
--Puddleglum, in C.S. Lewis's Narnia book The Silver Chair (excerpt)
"She felt as soft in my hands as a nestling dove."
--Mary Renault, The King Must Die
"Society, however, cannot subsist among those who are at all times ready to hurt and injure one another.
The moment that injury begins, the moment that mutual resentment and animosity take place,
all the bands of it are broke asunder, and the different members of which it consisted are, as it were,
dissipated and scattered abroad by the violence and opposition of their discordant affections.
If there is any society among robbers and murderers, they must at least, according to the trite observation, abstain from robbing and murdering one another.
Beneficence, therefore, is less essential to the existence of society than justice. Society may subsist, though not in the most comfortable state, without beneficence; but the prevalence of injustice must utterly destroy it."
--Adam Smith
" Reunions are for losers.."
--Tom DiLorenzo.
... and my favorite: "A working wife is worth three rent houses."
--J. Lanier Yeates
I've been discussing the issue of restitution versus retribution with some other libertarians. One of them maintains that force may be used against an aggressor only in self defense, or to compel restitution, but that it is unjust to ever purely punish an aggressor--that it is always disproportionate, and in fact violate's the aggressor's rights. I disagree. He also maintains that most libertarians are restitutionists not only in the sense that they prefer or predict a restitution-based justice system (as I do), but they also believe as he does that punishing an aggressor necessarily violates the aggressor's rights. I do not think proportional punishment violates the aggressor's rights, nor do I think most libertarians believe this. Participate in the poll below, so we can find out.
Plug (In) for a Buddy--contact management software:
My friend Misty Khan has a good interview on Startup Houston about her company, Advena Artemis, and the launch of her software, HuntressPro. It's an Outlook Add-in for sales contact management. It "provides contact management functionality such as call lists, referral source tracking and sales activity reporting". Up to now she's being doing customized versions of Huntress for customers, and is now releasing a downloadable software package with various optional plug-ins specific to various industries (e.g., for realtors). I know several customers of her earlier customized version in Houston and they all seem happy with it. (Competing products include ACT, etc., but Huntress has some advantages over it.) I've begun to experiment with it myself even though I'm not in sales, because it will be useful for some of the legal treatise editing work I do where I need to routinely contact or "touch" dozens of authors around the world for different phases of the publishing (initial contact; followup for due dates, etc.).
Still, though I'm finding a way to use it for my own non-sales need, HuntressPro is ideal for salespeople and sales teams who want to manage their follow-ups, contact information and sales activities directly from Outlook. It basically turns Outlook into a proper contact management software (what some people call "Customer Relationship Management," or CRM). I highly recommend any sales professionals give this a gander.
If any of you know any salespeople or companies with sales forces that might benefit from this, feel free to pass this on. Check out the interview for more info.
My column New Israel: A Win-Win-Win Proposal, published back in 2001, has resulted in one of the highest amounts of feedback, and longevity--I still occasionally get emails about it. Some similar proposals that came out after mine are:
Today I got a call from an Israeli TV producer with Kuperman Productions. They are "currently preparing the largest and most important entertainment talk show on Channel 2. ... As part of the show we will have an international culture slot, in which we wish to expose the Israeli viewer to international and local events around the world, the country tradition and important peoples. For example, we interviewed an Italian minister, Dutch football player, an Italian model etc. " In Houston, he told me, they will go to NASA, interview an Astros baseball player, a sheriff, etc. "The program also explores and probes what it means to be Israeli and will attempt to reveal how Israel is perceived throughout the world." They said they liked my "New Israel" paper and "were impressed by the interesting and brave idea." So they wanted to interview me next month. "The interview will be held in a light and friendly manner."
I am typically inclined not to do these things (e.g., turned down several Federalist Society invitations to speak on IP or other topics in recent years), primarily because there is always a cost to me (since I hate being away from home and my family) and there is little gain.
I ran it by some libertarian friends and colleagues, more out of curiousity than anything else. One attorney friend thought it could be a setup, ala Ali G. I don't think so, but appreciate his cynicism. The libertarians all thought I should do it. Of course--they are all altruists! :)
So one firiend on the libertarian list said, when I challenged him to tell me exactly why he thinks I should do this:
me: "Why should I do it? Why is it worth 2 hours of my time?"
Friend: "I am not going to make subjective value judgements for you, but maybe you could use the 2 hours to push some libertarian theory on unsuspecting interviewers."
Well. To me, this is altruistic.
A libertarian professor said:
"This seems like a real no brainer to me. Of COURSE you should do this. If not, at the very least you should give them the name of someone you trust to articulate your views on this matter.
Why?
Well, two reasons.
First the personal. This will shift out to the right the demand curve for your services.
Second, the political. This will help promote libertarianism. Would libertarianism be better or worse off if Ron Paul stopped running for pres, the MI disbanded, and other attempts to gain publicity for libertarianism ceased? As I say, a no brainer. Going on tv helps promote our cause; that's why I do it, plus give public speeches, organize seminars, etc.
Another point you might want to make. Even if we cease all foreign aid to Israel, it by no means follows that Israeli safety (in their present location) will fall. First, private giving will continue. Second, our govt but not private money supports their socialism. Without it, Israel would be more capitalist, richer, and thus better able to defend itself. Third, our govt money ties their hands in terms of military options."
As for his first reason: I don't think this will help me more demanded as a patent lawyer or GC. Second, I don't see how I personally benefit from marginally pushing libertarianism in Israel. The effect is slight at best; is it worth 2 hours of my life? No.
And, the deciding punch: I ran it by the wife. Her instant reply? "Absolutely not. Are you crazy?! Those f***ng people are nuts. Some *** might kill you. Who knows. This is our family."
So, it's a no-go on the interview. Israeli TV, I hardly knew ye.
On occasion someone will remark to me via email or IM that they, or others, think of me as some asshole. I've noticed before that sometimes the nicest and sweetest people--Hans Hoppe, Lew Rockwell--are unfairly characterized by people, largely those who don't know them. I suppose this happens because people impute a certain personality or character to others based on their writings, if they don't know them in person. But I'm just a lovable little fuzzball--honest injun.
Pix: Big Daddy and the Hoppinator, at the inaugural PFS meeting in Bodrum, Turkey, 2006; the other is Big Daddy on a boat trip at the meeting.
The latest translation of my Against Intellectual Property is this Georgian translation, published by the New Economic School – Georgia as chapter in Property and Liberty, Vol. III of the Library of Liberty series (2005), a selection of free market oriented writers published with support of Friedrich Naumann Foundation (Germany). The article has also been translated into Spanish and Polish.
In any event. On the Mises blog post he wrote in a comment that he was glad "that some of my teachings have had an effect on you." I had no idea what he was jabbering about but had a vague recollection that he was some kind of loon or nut. He was insinuating, I thought, that I was using in my arguments something he taught me... and vaguely implying I should have given him credit. I thought this ridiculous and said so; he escalated with attempts at "proving" how I had plagiarized him and was a liar.
So I have refreshed my memory. First, as to who this dude is. I remember now: he has gone in the past, on various boards, as Count Lithium von Chloride, Tetrachordine Omega, and Tetrahedron Omega. He has written before about his various experiences with drugs, and how this has given him insight into the universe, and the "omega point," some nonsense like this. See, e.g., my discussion of this stuff in this post and in this anti-state thread, where he talks about his "god-trips". In his article Jesus is an Anarchist, he signs off thus:
Born in Austin, Texas and raised in the Leander, Texas hill country, the native-born Augustinian James Redford is a young born again Christian who was converted from atheism by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. He is a scientific rationalist who considers that the Omega Point (i.e., the physicists' technical term for God) is an unavoidable result of the known laws of physics. His personal website can be found here: http://geocities.com/vonchloride
Uh, yeah--the Omega Point... direct revelation of Christ via drugs which incude various so-called Levels of so-called God-Trips. Like, wow, man. I think he actually believes this stuff. Another funny comment: in our email conversation in 2000, I jokingly used the term "jelly head" to refer to stoners or those who do drugs, after he started going on about all the revelations he'd gotten from doing drugs. He didn't know the term "jelly-head," so I explained:
Jelly head--slang for junkie, drug head, stoner. I guess the term implies that you do so many terms it turns the brain to sludge, jelly.
His humble reply? "Well, my brain is still quite intact and functioning on an I.Q. level higher than almost all people." Uhhh, HOkay.
And in His website shows he's a 9/11 conspiracy nut, too. And let's not forget his various handles: Count Lithium von Chloride, Tetrachordine Omega, and Tetrahedron Omega. He reminds me a bit of Per Malloch, another smart young libertarian who also liked my estoppel theory and Hoppe's argumentation ethics, and who also liked drugs, unfortunately a bit too much--he OD'd in college a few years ago. I wonder how long Redford will be with us. Oh well, at least he's a "Christian," so if he OD's he'll just ascend to the Jesus Omega Point, I guess, where drugs will be free and plentiful.
Anyway, he wrote in the recent Mises thread:
I'm glad that some of my teachings have had an effect on you. Ergo, your somewhat recent statement of "an ought from an ought." (Your September 8, 2006 11:19 AM reply under "How We Come to Own Ourselves.")
He was referring to my comment there to someone: "I agree you cannot get an ought from an is. I am not. I am getting an ought from an ought."
Redford is implying I got this from him. Why? Here is something he wrote me long ago (which I had of course forgotten). During one of those conversations he agreed with my Humean point that you can't derive an an ought from an is; and he said he liked my own theory because in it I derive an ought from an ought. He wrote (back in February of 2000):
One remarkable thing about your rights argument is that it seems to totally by-pass the is/ought dichotomy. Rather than simply derive an "ought" from an "is" (which alone is impossible), it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" which any objector to libertarian punishment necessarily already holds.
Note that he here was simply agreeing with what my own theory did: that it derived an ought from an ought. Therefore avoiding the ought from an is problem, which I was of course already aware of. (It permeates my arguments; and see also p. 1432 of my 1994 review essay on one of Hoppe's books (discussing how Hoppe's argumentation ethics overcomes the Humean is-ought dichotomy; and p. 136 (text at n. 13) of Hoppe's 1989 book TSC, which I had of course devoured by the time I wrote my estoppel theory: "In fact, one can readily subscribe to the almost generally accepted view that the gulf between “ought” and “is” is logically unbridgeable. .... On the problem of the deriveability of “ought” from “is” statements cf. W. D. Hudson (ed.), The Is-Ought Question, London, 1969; for the view that the fact-value dichotomy is an ill-conceived idea cf. the natural rights literature cited in note 4 above.")
Now. I have used "ought from an ought" on occasion, at least in the last couple of years, as I have explained and defended my views on rights, and the problem with the is-ought dichotomy. Did I get the phrase from Redmond? I have no idea. I suppose it is possible that a phrase he used to describe my own theory stuck in my head and bubbled to the surface years later. If so, I woudl have no problem "admitting" it, as he charges; why not? After all, it's just a natural way to describe what my own theory does, as he admitted way back in 2000. And although he seems proud that if you google the phrase "ought from an ought" in usenet groups his is the first one mentioned, as if he had some great achievement (in just finding a way to describe why my own "remarkable" rights argument!), as I showed him, if you google the phrase on the web, several uses of it show up, e.g. one in 1973. (Redford's emphasis on the fact that he has the first use of the phrase on usenet, and that there are only 13 or so in a web-wide google search, is also odd: there are no doubt various ways to word the idea that you can only get an ought from an ought, other than the literal phrase "ought from an ought", which his and my google search espicked out, so the basic insight or idea or way of putting it is probably out there many more times than that simple one search would show. Not to mention that there are tons of publications not yet searchable.)
Regarding my citing of the 1973 use of the phrase, of course I did not list that to imply that I got the phrase from that source rather than from Redford; but to show that it's probably a natural way for people to describe this, that many people can either independently come to, or that is floating around out there and occasionally used. I think it's likely I either read this phraseology in various places, or maybe independently came up with it myself. I mean if you say that an ought can't come from an is, so you have to start with a presupposed ought (as Hoppe and I both argue, in a sense; even Rand, as I noted before, with her hypothetical ethics), it's, um, natural to say that you can't get an ought from an is, but only from an ought. Redford's attempt grab fame for such an obvious insight is frankly bizarre. If the thought of using that simple phrase to describe my very own rights theory was put in my head by Redford's email to me back in 2000, whoop de doo. Fine. Who cares?
So, he lists part of our email conversation from 2000 (he, um, saved it, you see), to prove I'm a plagiarist and liar. Okay, so let's recap. I think his "ought from an ought" phrase is a kind of obvious way of stating one good thing about my own rights theory. That, er, I came up with. I think it's good Omega, er Redford, came up with it. I think many people have. I may have too; or may have remembered it from Redford's email to me, um, 6 years ago, or maybe from seeing others' writings on related subjects. I'm even grateful Redford was friendly to my rights theory, but I think it's frankly bizarre of him to keep score of such minute things and to try to take credit for such a thing, or to accuse me of plagiarism, or lying. On the other hand, I guess there are worse things than being insulted by a self-admitted drug-using conspiracy-theorizing born-again Chloride-Omega Christian with Direct Revelation to God.
November 10, 2006
The Dem'Rat Victory:
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I think this might put some responsiblity on Democrats to actually come up with something now... and then they can take part of the blame when Iraq or the economy fail. OTOH Bush might get more socialist stuff done now.
I fear however that the Republicans lost not because they are not "principled" or free market or even "Reaganite" enough, but simply because (a) Iraq is unpopular; and (b) people are basically socialistic.
So even if the Republicans can get out of the shadow of the Iraq debacle, maybe the right can make some gains, but you still have (b) as a problem. Only real solution to that is to use black and female and hispanic candidates. Not to become "more libertarian" or even more principled. That won't get more voters.
Because I live in the U.S. rather than Russia, last night I had the opportunity to see Borat, which I highly recommend. In addition to making me laugh so hard I couldn't breathe (the look on former Georgia congressman Bob Barr's face during his brief encounter with Sacha Baron Cohen's Kazakh alter ego is by itself worth the price of admission), it made me sympathize a bit (a teeny-weeny bit) with the Anti-Defamation League's concern that people confronted by the outrageous anti-Semitism of Borat and his compatriots might not get the joke.
During the Running of the Jew, a traditional festival in Cohen's version of Kazakhstan, the townspeople chase a giant papier-mache figure that looks like a Nazi (or Arab) caricature of a Jew down the street. The Jew is followed by the Jewess, who lays a huge Jew egg that the children of the village attack with gusto, smashing it to bits. It's pretty damned funny, but I couldn't help wondering if the rest of the audience at the theater in Dallas was laughing at it for the same reasons I was. [italics added]
It's this last sentence that bugs me. Just seems condescending--"I am laughing at it for the right reasons, of course--but these Southern rubes? I'm not so sure...."
Second Thoughts on Gay Marriage:
If Hillary Clinton can do it, why not me? I've pontificated before on this topic--"The" Libertarian View on Gay Marriage; On Gay Marriage. I haven't really changed my mind on any of my particular points... and maybe I'm being worn down... but it seems to me that gays ought to be able to get married. Why not. Let them do it, if they want. Who does it hurt, really?
There are many homosexuals who are lifelong partners; some even have kids. Many of them would like to get married. The state has monopolized what marriage is, however; and refuses to let them do it. I think they should be allowed to. It's senseless to hurt them by not letting them do it.
I agree that one danger is that it would make it harder to resist the idea of making gays a "suspect class" for purposes of antidiscrimination treatment. But you know what, screw it. All the morons out there who favor "normal" race and sex and religion-based antidiscrimination laws ... let them feel some more pain.
November 08, 2006
A collection of recent blogs about patent hypocrisy and "success" stories:
Recently had an email discussion with an inventor. He wanted to know why abolishing the patent system would be "in his interest". Edited comments:
I don't think it's relevant whether it's in "your interest," to be honest. If I were a beneficiary of a million dollars a year of government welfare, I would have "an interest" in not having the welfare program abolished. So what? Does my interest mean it should not be abolished?
In my view, the threat posed by patents to honest businessmen is atrocious. It is pure government socialism in that it takes away property rights from people and awards them to others, as in the NTP-RIM litigation.
Of course, most patent lawyers are in favor of the patent system, and repeat the tired old mantras that it's "necessary" to "stimulate" innovation, blah blah blah. Wow, big surprise. As I showed in There's No Such Thing As A Free Patent, none of them know what the hell they are jabbering about. They are disingenous advocates for a system that helps perpetuate their livelihood. IMHO.
On Patenting Music and Patent Hypocrisy--exchange with Greg Aharonian about hypocrisy of those who implicitly claim the patent system is worth it but who refuse to engage on the issue
1. Battlestar Galactica 2. Galactica Watercooler 3. Dexter 4. Heroes 5. Mark Kermode Film Reviews 6. Ebert & Roeper Film Reviews 7. Slate daily podcast 8. MSNBC Tucker Carlson 9. The Laura Ingraham show 10. Cato daily podcast 11. Mises podcast 12. Stef Molyneux podcast (occasional) 13. TWIT -- very high 14. Cranky geeks--very high 15. Diggnation (very high) 16. 60-second silence 17. 43 folders 18. NPR story of the day (sometimes) 19. Ask a Ninja
November 06, 2006
Mozy.com Free Online Backup Service:
Just an FYI--for anyone who does not have a good backup service for their computer documents and files: there's a great service i've been using --I have struggled with good backup solutions for a long time. I have tried several. A few months back I stumbled across Mozy.com which I tried and love. It's an online backup service, and does 2GB of storage FREE. It is very cool; seems to work seemlessly, and without error. I set it to backup a few times a day. The first time it backs up, it might take a day or more; but after that, each backup is incremental so it's pretty fast. I use it at home, and also at work. For work I purchased the $4.95/month version which gives you like 30GB or something like that. For home I just use the free version. Actually you get an extra 250MB (a quarter of a GB) of space for every person you refer--I have done this and now have over 5GB of space. In fact if you sign up using someone else's referral link, you start out with 2.25GB instead of 2GB. If you want to try it for backup purposes, click on my referral link (https://mozy.com/?code=P52E8G) to get 2.25GB (instead of just 2.0GB) free space. I've done a few sample backups just to test it (and one time to recover a file I had accidentally deleted), and it worked great. Highly recommended.
I just heard an interesting story about Tom Palmer. Apparently he was in Amsterdam recently for the Reason conference, and someone snapped a picture which is going around which shows Palmer splayed drunk on the floor in a quasi-sexy pose with a goofy look on his face. I won't post it here--it's too embarrassing for poor Tom.
Hmm, if someone--hypothetically--had sent that pic to me, would it be wrong to post it? Inquiring minds want to know!
I've learned from reliable sources connected with various free market think tanks around the world that various important companies, in particular pharmaceutical, have become "supporters" of such think tanks--provided, of course, that the think tank supports intellectual property rights. Could this be one reason many free market think tanks are supportive of IP despite a mounting case against it?
And note that Cato's pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc., at least according to SourceWatch (admittedly, though, the site does not provide a source for their claim, and none of these companies are listed in Cato's 2005 annual report).
October 10, 2006
Libertarian Resource and Link Guide - Wiki:
I have for some time maintained a web page with libertarian links. But, it's hard to maintain and is based on only one man's knowledge.
I have moved the content of this page to a wiki so that other members of the libertarian community can help collaborate to improve this list of resources.
a classical treatise. ... It is noteworthy and commendable that--unlike so many other contemporary writers--the authors try to give a neutral and unbiased overview over diverging awards and disputed issues. ... It is a timely book. In their introduction, the authors state: 'we hope to provide the non-specialist lawyer, business person, or government official with the tools necessary to understand the international law of investment and its relationship to political risk'. They have managed to do so, and done even more. First, they successfully combined what would be three separate books (on structuring of investment, international law on investment protection and dispute settlement) in their own right. Second, they provide a coherent and--despite the necessary brevity--in-depth discussion of all relevant issues. Even minor points such as pre-dispute settlement negotiations, or the problem of pre-investment expenditures as investments, are dealt with comprehensively.... In doing so, the authors never become lost in academic debate, but always keep the perspective of the practitioner. These features make the book not only an excellent introduction and comprehensive overview about the state of the law of investment protection, but also a valuable reference tool for anyone experienced in the field. It is to be recommended to anyone who wishes to gain an insight into the topics under discussion or only needs a reference guide to current law and practice. The quality of the analysis ensures that the book will not lose its value even if the law continues to develop. For both academics and practitioners active in investment arbitration, it must be considered indispensable. .... These books [IIPR plus a casebook on foreign investment disputes] are like sea chart maps which allow the reader to navigate on the vast sea of information constituted by papers, awards and court cases during the last 100 years. Even the experienced sailor will and should not leave harbour without such sea charts.
September 20, 2006
On Conspiracy Theories:
I've often ranted myself about libertarian cranks and nuts, conspiracy theories and the like. One of my favorite analyses is that by Brian Doherty in Reason -- he gives a nice analysis of the income tax protestor nuts:
The tax honesty movement’s vision of the world is fantastical in another way. It is not merely obsessed with continuity; it is magical in a traditional sense. It’s devoted to the belief that the secret forces of the universe can be bound by verbal formulas if delivered with the proper ritual.
In a debate with other libertarians, we discussed the issue of conspiracy theories. Some conspiracy theories are sensible, e.g. those having to do with the rise of the Fed and the influence of certain interested parties. I suppose what we are really criticizing are crackpot theories. Which conspiracy theories are crackpot, and which are not? It's hard to say ahead of time, but usually you know it when you see it.
I hate it when I send someone an email with attached files, and they send the same ones back to me when they reply. I understand some email systems, like Lotus Notes, often have default settings that for some reason attach files when when you reply--why, I have no idea, as there is almost never a reason to do this. It is so annoying.
July 27, 2006
Intentional Trespass vs. Unintentional Conduct:
In an email discussion with someone, I made the point that one reason debtor's prison is impermissible is that failure to repay a loan is not theft, is not a crime, since if the debtor is penniless, there is no property to steal. So I distinguished between taking property without consent, or failure to have money to repay--one distinction is that the former is intentional, whereas the latter is not.
My correspondent said default may seem disanalogous to theft because the person's inability to pay may not be his fault; but if you adhere to a strict-liability restitution theory, then there can be theft regardless of fault or intention.
My reply: Ah. So you don't think intent matters. A negligent killing is as culpable as an intentional one? I think you have to have a continuum; this is what would permit you to say mere behavior--a muscle spasm--is not actionable. I am sure you would carve that out. But then you have a discontinuous theory, that seems strange.
His reply was that if the wind blows him onto my property, there is no intent but it's still trespass, and I can insist he leave (and if he refuses, then that's the intentional act). He also said that if I have a muscle spasm (not even an action, really, just behavior), and break your vase, then I have to pay. So intent does not matter; there is an obligation to repay (restitution) no matter what.
I wrote, Right. I know this view. I'm skeptical of it. Plus, I'm not quite convinced that just b/c you have the right to eject me that means I committed trespass in getting there. Further--suppose the wind blows me up in the air, onto your ship at sea. I am not 100% sure you have the right to push me off thereby killing me.
He wrote, well, maybe it's not trespass; but that the reason he can't kick me off is proportionality concenrs.
My reply:
Yes; but would you say the proportionality concerns are the *same* in the case of someoen who accidentally ends up on your property and someoen who intentionally does? I bet I could come up with cases where you'd say the concerns are different.
And imagine, say, A is thrown on your boat, and B is an intentional trespasser. The boat will sink w 3 people. Surely it's more just to cast B overboard than A; it is not neutral. Espcially, if B is a kidnapper who *carries* his victim, A, on board.
I think you have to imagine how a libertarian jury would hand the cases. Say, you have a house boat w/ a dinner party. The boat breaks free in a storm. You can't now "disinvite" your guests, it ti would mean their deaths. Now you can seay that there are all kind of implicit contracts, whatever, but the bottom line, if you kick them off, the (libertarian) jury will likely convict you of murder.
Now suppose some robbers break in while the boat is heading out to sea. You subdue them; then you just cast them over. Is it disproportionate? Maybe. Would a (libertarian) jury be as likely to convict you? Of course not.
You see the implications of this I assume.
Now in the pastI've given Walter block the Hulk example, since he thinks (like you, I think) that IF you have the right to use force against someone in self-defense, this implies they are a criminal. But if the Hulk hurls A at B, B might be entitled to swat A aside with a bug club, to avoid getting killed, even if this kills A. But this does not imply A is a criminal, just because it seems "analogous" to the fact that I am entitled to kill a criminal who is trying to attack me. I am entitled to kill the criminal because he is committing a criminal act; B is entitled to kill A for different reasons. And these differences are not trivial: AFTER a crime, the victim has a right to hunt down and do something to the criminal (punish, restitution, whatever). But after the Hulk hurls A at B, if A and B survive, B is not entitled to hunt down A and try to punish him or get restitution from him.
I love Apple, as an idea, but just can't get around to liking the Mac. I even bought a MacBook the other day for home use, and still, using it feels like using a mouse with my left hand.
Some funny parodies of the Mac-PC commercials: parody ads; and a cartoon.
Beyond YouTube:
This LightReading article, Video Site Cheat Sheet II, summarizes various video hosting/sharing websites. YouTube and Google Video are not the only ones.
June 12, 2006
Objectivists on Fractional Reserves:
My post on NoodleFood is below in case they delete me:
I have learned a great deal about this topic from some debates among Austrians in the RAE and QJAE, e.g. (all available at www.mises.org if no link provided):
Hoppe: How is Fiat Money Possible?-or, The Devolution of Money and Credit http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae7_2_3.pdf
Rothbard: Aurophobia: or, Free Banking on What Standard? A Review of Gold, Greenbacks, and the Constitution, by Richard H. Timberlake http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae6_1_4.pdf
Hulsmann: Free Banking and the Free Bankers http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_1_1.pdf also: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_3.pdf
Block: Hayek, Business Cycles, and Fractional Reserve Banking: Continuing the De-Homogenization Process http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_1_3.pdf
and on the other side: Selgin & White's In Defense of Fiduciary Media-or, We are Not Devo(lutionists), We are Misesians! http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_5.pdf
As I mentioned in this thread discussing some Objectivist economic views ( http://blog.mises.org/archives/003091.asp ), unlike Hoppe, Hulsmann, Rothbard, Reisman, et al., I do not see fractional reserve banking as being necessarily *fraudulent*. As I wrote, "If it is disclosed clearly enough, I am not sure I see any fraudulent act being committed. I would need to be persuaded there is a given, concrete person who is a victim of fraud necessarily, due to fractional reserve banking--and a given coherent, precise definition of fraud given."
That said, I am convinced by the arguments of these writers that fractional reserve banking makes no sense economically and could not work. To me, it is an attempt to get something for nothing; and it makes the mistake of conflating money (and the money supply) with actual wealth (e.g. produced goods). There is a difference between saved money, and invested money. If you want to let 90% of your "deposit" be "loaned out" fine, but then it is really a type of investment, not savings, and cannot be a genuine deposit.
June 02, 2006
Rand and Rights:
Some recent thoughts. I have over the years re-thought the coherence of Rand's argument on rights. (Re Rand's epistemology--always thought a lot of it made sense, in common-sense, broad outlines, or when she was critiquing others; OTOH I tend to think she greatly distorted Kant.) Much like I've re-thought her argument for patents. Both of them seem sensible at first but the more you think about them the more they don't hang together.
Re rights I think the problem is you really can't derive an ought from an is. Her flip comment that what a thing's nature IS determines what it OUGHT to do is a non-sequitur. You have to have a "moral leap," in my view; which she in a sense agrees iwht, by saying that all ethics is based on the original (and a-moral!) "choice to live". In my view, likewise, there is no categorical, natural-law "non-aggression rule." Rather, I think it is the case that those people who do (for whatever reason, or, yes, "whim") happen to personally value civilization, peace, cooperation, and who therefore seek to justify proposed uses of interpersonal violence--that the non-aggression rule emerges. And the most consistent among them are libertarians. I.e., rihgts are sort of hypothetical. But tha'ts okay. I think many Randians and other libertarians would be reluctant to admit this b/c they want a "drop dead," "good for all time" argument. But even if you had such an argument: still, people have free will, and some people would choose to act immorally anyway. So there is no "penalty" for admitting civilized ethics are hypothetical; none at all; they are no "stronger" than categorical or natural law ones; and they are easier to justify--you just appeal to the baseline sense of morality that is already adopted by any fellow participant in civilized discourse. And if they are not such people, they are like animals, outlaws, criminals, which exist even if you had a knock-down argument.
I have some draft material on this which I plan to publish whenever I find time to clean it up.
Top 10 Essential Classic Rock Albums--oh really? Not much rock on there--The Who? The Beatles? Rolling Stones? Bob Dylan? The Doors? Soft rock, pop rock, candy rock. Not real rock. Okay, I'll give 'im Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and even Hendrix, though that's more proto-rock. Maybe even Jefferson Airplane, and the annoying Clapton. But where is Rush? Van Halen? Even Metallica is real rock at least.
The Trouble with Libertarian Activism:
My latest LRC piece, here. Some discussion at LRC blog,
