Bull riding lesson in norco california. Norco louisiana….

City of norco. Norco. Norco world wide. Norco ca attorneys. Norco service jack. Cheap norco….

I don’t think that necessarily follows. Liberty is liberty and property is property. The two are separate concepts, which are generally at odds with each other; liberty is freedom of action, constrained only by the like freedom of others, property is the right to constrain the freedom of action of another.

Any system of property rights is compatible with liberty if it leaves everybody with the maximum amount of freedom that it is possible for everybody to possess simultaneously. Any choice between systems which satisfy that criteria will be based on something other than liberty.

While defining “capitalism” as “private ownership of the means of production” is the economic aspect of liberty, “private ownership” naturally coincides with free markets and individual rights. It shouldn’t be confusing, and there’s no reason to change the word when describing free markets. I don’t think it was ever intended to define all aspects of human liberty.

You write:

“I would agree ‘capitalism’ is not the ‘essence’ of the free market, but it is a critical feature of any advanced free market, if by ‘capitalism’ we mean [something that has always been falsely tied to, but has never been part of the definition of, 'capitalism'].”

The term “capitalism” was coined to mean a mixed/industrialized state-regulated economy and popularized as part of Marx’s theory of economic evolution in which it falls between the mercantilist era and the revolution/dictatorship of the proletariat.

“Private ownership of the means of production” in that context is necessarily illusory, because state regulation is a de facto claim of the state’s possession of at least some, and potentially all, of the bundle of rights that constitutes “ownership.” Therefore the difference between “capitalism” and “completely state-operated economy” is a difference of degree, not of kind.

I’ve no desire to go to constant and total rhetorical war with those libertarians who mistakenly conflate “capitalism” and “the free market,” but they are mistaken, and in a way that plays into the hands of the statist worldview. I decline to be mistaken with them, and reserve the right to occasionally point out to them that they’re stepping on their own cranks.

“Taxes should be voluntary contributions for the proper governmental services which people do need and therefore would be and should be willing to pay for — as they pay for insurance. But, of course, this is a problem for a distant future, for the time when men will establish a fully free social system. It would be the last, not the first, reform to advocate.”

I recently finished Against Intellectual Property and I was wondering what other works you would suggest for furthering reading. I know there are hundreds of essays and books on this subject, but as a college student, I am severely limited on time and would like your two cents on this one.

By the way, your book was a great read and has certainly reinforced my knowledge on this matter. The examples of patents filed in the appendix were hilarious and only serve to highlight the absolute absurdity of such laws.

I have been working on an “opt-out” theory for the past year or so, and what it boils down to for me is that in an anarcho-capitalist society you have the ability to opt out of the system of market engagement and can choose not to participate. You can pool your resources with a group of people and form your own communal living arrangement and go back go agriculture and share everything you have. Or, you can choose to participate in the capitalist free market.

However, in a Left-Libertarian society the entire system would rest on the absence of private property and communal living. No one would be allowed to opt-out and choose suddenly to have private property and engage in capitalist-style commerce. If they did, the system would crumble. So if someone branched out and decided they wanted to engage in capitalism and private property, it would be in the best interest of the community to force them to stop…thus not Libertarian at all.

This has led me to conclude that the only system that maximizes liberty is one that allows for an “opt out” principle, meaning that if I choose not to participate that I’m allowed to and it doesn’t negatively harm those who remain in the system. Libertarian Anarcho-Capitalism seems to be the only system which allows for that “opt out”. The American Founders seemed to somewhat desire that ability, arguing in many cases for the ability for states to secede, but we know how that turned out.

I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this Stephan. Remember, I’m new to this so forgive me for any ideological contradictions I present. I’m learning.

I have not yet come across the term bossism, and I have not come across the term alienation within any context I assume to be relevant to this discussion.

I also don’t see the term bigness often, but I can at least imagine that I understand a relevant definition. If we agree with Rothbard that a firm undergoes the same problems as a socialist state when said firms comes to own, even if through legitimate means, all or most of the means of production involved in a certain sector of the economy; and if we agree with Rothbard that such a firm will likely lose or be unable to retain its so-called “monopoly” because of calculational problems; then we would conclude that the “bigness” of industry is a problem, but one that the market resolves spontaneously. If left-libertarians “harp” on this fact, I would think they/we do so only as a retort to state socialists who fear that, without anti-trust laws, big business would rule us all. And if they/we spend any time discussing this idea with other libertarians, it is only to help provide said other libertarians with arguments that they may find effective, or to help eliminate certain “vulgar libertarian” tendencies that they/we believe ultimately hurt us in our objective of promoting libertarianism to the general public.

Finally, although I certainly have seen a great deal of discussion concerning corporations, I largely do not understand how corporation is being defined in such conversations. If we define the corporation as a group of people who, as a collective, possess limited liability even with those individuals with whom they have no contractual agreements to limit liability, then I believe all principled libertarians are opposed to corporations. If we define a corporation as a business structure wherein individuals can own shares, then I tend to see a corporation as a very libertarian institution indeed.

While I would, as a mere personal preference, prefer to see worker-owned firms displace capitalist-owned firms, I also accept the Rothbardian argument (presented in The Ethics of Liberty) that there is nothing unethical about a capitalist offering to exchange with workers a medium of exchange for the product of their labour; likewise, there is nothing unethical about the labourer accepting such an offer. I maintain that in an anarchy, we would have a plethora of options, including communes, worker-owned firms, and capitalist-owned firms. Whether any of these constitute “corporations,” it seems, would largely depend upon how one is defining the term.

Yours,
Alex Peak

I don’t see why one would say left-libertarianism averse to industrialism, mass production, or the division of labour.

Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak

http://www.thepursuitoffolk.blogspot.com

Thanks for looking

And kudos to you, Stephan.

I agree with your assesment on IP and your paper titled “Against Intellectual Property” supports the position with brilliant nuance.

Congratulations sir.

Kyle Kidwell
President Young Americans for Liberty
Illinois State University Chapter

Singulair canada….

“If there is life, then I believe we should do nothing to disturb that life.
Mars then, belongs to the Martians, even if they are microbes.”

-Carl Sagan
Cosmos, Blues For a Red Planet

How about the labor that was put into the arrangement? In the digital era, where copies can be made using minimal resources, it is the labor and time that is the most “expensive” part of the creation. Do we have rights to that labor?

I suppose you can argue that in things digital and online, it is the bandwidth that is the scarce resource that is appropriated when someone makes a copy directly from the original content creator’s server. Though, that argument would only apply to specific situations where copies are made from the source server. Once a “legal copy” has been made, there is not an ethical argument that can be made against people who willingly allocate their bandwidth to share their “legal copy” with thousands of people through BitTorrent. The source server is bypassed altogether.

Relax
You don’t have to drop the big ideas
Simon and Garfunkel, they understand.
It’s all in The sounds of silence
{:-)

I helped found I-Cube Design Systems, which produced “non-blocking crossbar switches”.
–let’s just say I know what a crossbar is and about the complexity of switch fabric chips and let’s leave it at that

I stand on the shoulders of others
–we all do. I support that message

Imagine founding RIM, inventing the Blackberry, and … Then pay $612M to the typing bandits at NTP
–my understanding is that RIM could have negotiated for far less but chose to play total hardball

They know they can get a RIM job from the NTPs of the world if they spend time looking at patents.
–unfortunately that part is true. If you know about another’s patent and then you knowingly infringe/ continue to infringe and tell the patent owner, hey I dare you to sue me –well what do you want the court to do? On the other hand, many people glean much in the way of ideas from others patent even if they don’t build a close copy.

Ideas are cheap, implementation is hard. Delivery is what a free market should reward, not typing patent applications.
–Keith, you are indeed fortunate if ideas come so easily to you. Others struggle with coming up with new ideas. If ideas are so easy (and patents and secrecy are to be shunned) then please share with us here in the open what the next great killer application is and how to implement it. In other words, you provide the idea here and then others deliver it to the market. Win win for everybody. Wouldn’t that be true?

I leave space here for you to fill to drop in your ideas for the next 10 killer apps in the global market place:
1. ___________
2. ___________
3. ___________
well? what are they?

But its not because they are “nearby and are conveniently wealthy”, its because they are the collective owners of the property and ultimately have full authority over that property including the right to buy, sell, give away, hire the board of directors, management and workers, have the property used for whatever purpose they want, etc etc. So its not strangers pulled off the street because they are wealthy but individuals who joined a collective and bought stock which represents ownership in that collective

The fact that they are lazy, ignorant, or only interested in counting their profits does not take away the fact that the stockowners are the collective owners of the property. By their declaration of ownership they demand the right of total control over that property. Yet when there are costs involving this property they suddenly want to pass responsibility onto others. They want the right to maximize their profits using this property but minimize their loses and transfer as much of these loses onto others.

If someone want to say for example that they only own $1,000 of the stock and therefore their losses should be capped at $1,000 then lets even things up and say that their profits can only be $1,000? But no, they want to have unlimited profit from that $1,000 stock but only have liability of $1,000.

Anyway, anarcho-capitalists are certainly NOT for a society “not organized with violence” — they just think it should be organized with different sorts of violence than is the current one.

” or not to hire people because of their race”

Kinsella especially likes this part.

I am an inventor, and I invent for the same reason that you breath, because life would be short and ugly without it. Any intelligent person invents, and with modern tools of science and communication invention is easy and common. Ideas are cheap, implementation is hard. Delivery is what a free market should reward, not typing patent applications. Businessmen do not wait in the shadows to steal your inventions. They have customers to please, and plenty of inventiveness on their own.

To claim that I have a sense of entitlement because I oppose patents is, bluntly, a lie. You cannot read my mind. Please do not expect to change my mind by misrepresenting what I think. I add value to the world around me because that value always returns multiplied, usually in unexpected ways, sometimes long after my “contribution”. Not altruism. Rather, sharing attracts sharing. Gardens are easier to live in than war zones.

Most of my inventions are purposely in the public domain. Some of them have been “swooped in” upon and patented by companies like Texas Instruments. It costs more money than I have to fight those thieves, even if I’ve published my ideas in trade journals, supposedly making them easily searchable prior art.

My primary “community” is innovators, I interact with hundreds of inventors every year. Yes, some of them pursue and have patents. Far more of them have better things to do. They focus on customers and sales and improving their products, rather than writing patent applications and spending money on lawyers. Their biggest worry is the trolls that produce nothing, but are waiting for the producers to become successful and then attack in court.

Imagine founding RIM, inventing the Blackberry, and busting your ass making it work and bringing it to customers. Then pay $612M to the typing bandits at NTP that spent their time filing pointless patent applications rather than building their own products and finding their own customers. If the thieves at NTP had never been born, the Blackberry would be on the market sooner, and serving more customers cheaper and better. Nobody in the world benefited from what NTP did. In fact, a rule of thumb for real inventors is to avoid reading patent specifications (the constitutional reason for patents), because if you do, court damages triple for the patents that you’ve read and whose claims you mistakenly thought you weren’t violating. If you are skilled enough to understand the actual legal meanings of claims , you are a patent lawyer or a judge, and probably not an inventor.

The existence of the patent system encourages ignorance. When making money by consulting, I deal with a lot of startups. The single biggest reason these startups fail is because of secrecy and a lack of information sharing. They know they can get a RIM job from the NTPs of the world if they spend time looking at patents. Because of the effect of disclosure on the courtroom survivability of a patent the clients are applying for, they restrict disclosure to far fewer potential customers, partners, and vendors than they would otherwise. They do not encounter the unexpected, and that is what you learn from.

I have contributed great things to the world and will contribute more, in spite of, not because of, patents. I stand on the shoulders of others, and others are welcome to stand on mine. I invent faster when I exchange information. I sell more when others are selling similar things. We create the whole market together, then differentiate into segments where each of us adds unique value. Multiple sources validate each other – no smart customer buys from a monopoly.

Case in point: I helped found I-Cube Design Systems, which produced “non-blocking crossbar switches”. Originally designed for an entirely different (and imaginary) market, those found their way into the early internet routing switches made by Cisco and others. Much of the internet traffic in the early 90’s passed through chips I designed. Another company, Aptix, was our competitor, and spent more of their seed money on sales rather than design. Their products were too expensive, and hard to test in assembled systems, so we got most of the design wins. The market as a whole would have been much smaller if Aptix was not there with us to validate the non-blocking approach to customers. I-Cube would also have been far less successful if it wasn’t for public standards such as IEEE1149.1 . I used what I learned at I-Cube to help write another public standard, IEEE1149.4 . Which led to a few consulting clients, and to the inventions that became patent 6161213 (for reasons many do not understand). Continuous cycles of feedback and sharing.

“step back” – what have you invented? Is any of it patented? Has any of it been in production? What was the hard part of the work – was that the patentable part? Are you talking from experience, or repeating unverified homilies? I have heard the same homilies all my life, and when I tested them, I found them to be dangerously untrue. If you have practical experience, share it. Plausible does not equal true.

Every word in the languages I use to share my ideas are words invented by countless other individuals. They and their heirs never got a dime from me or you. They invented the words of my language for free. Those that believe the inventions of others should never be used without monetary compensation should start by not listening to the words of others, and shutting up. Many patent aficionados master the wrong half of that.

Keith,

Granted that the patent game is no sure fire thing. It’s a big gamble and many an inventor waste their life chasing after the holy grail only to come up a dime short and empty handed.

But that is exactly the point of having a lottery-like patent game. Your experience is testimony to its effectiveness. If there was not the lure of some giant windfall gold strike in the unpredictable future, hardly anyone would waste their energy trying to go where no man has gone before (invention wise). After all, a bird in the hand is always worth more than two far fetched maybes in the bush.

“If you have a sense of entitlement rather than a work ethic …”
I don’t think that is a fair characterization of most, hard working inventors. It should instead be a characterization of the second line “taker”. You know. The businessman who waits in the shadows for some venturesome inventor to prove there is a profitable market in some new fangled gizmo or service, and then swoops in to take the winnings away from he who gambled in the first place. Those who oppose patents “have a sense of entitlement“; entitlement to the fruits from the first inventor’s work.

Zenna Henderson never sold the rights to her work. She died, and her heirs (who were not writers, and might have resented her writing) sold the rights to a third party. In an ideal world, her fans would have bought the rights from the family and kept the works intact. But neither her family, or her fans, or indeed most people understand the financial anti-artistic nature of copyright. Fandom is a diffuse and difficult-to-monitize thing; if a million people (present and future) care 10 cents each about the integrity of a work, that $100,000 cannot be practically aggregated, and cannot compete with $5,000 of concentrated commercial interest. We need to understand how things actually work, then aggregate our concern about thousands of works like Ms. Henderson’s, and change the laws so they are not antithetical to the preservation of artistic works.

Preservation does NOT mean control, or automatically forbidding changes. It does mean allowing non-change, perhaps by mandating availability for the original version, or releasing the original version into the public domain if the copyright owner refuses to make it available.

If you want some version of your work to survive, release it under Creative Commons (bless you, Larry Lessig!) or into the public domain. Some people will change, remix, and quote it without attribution. Others will defend the original version. If you sign your work with strong public key encryption, the authenticity of the original version can be proved practically forever. If nobody cares enough to preserve the authentic original, it dies. But in a culture with a strong commitment to open information, and few risks for doing so, there will always be someone willing to spend a fraction of a penny per century to keep unfashionable works alive – look at what Brewster Kahle is doing with Archive.org .

But if you concern is making money – sell something that people want. If you understand what you are doing, and treat your customers right, you can out-compete the people that are copying you. If you have a sense of entitlement rather than a work ethic, the Chinese (who know how to work their butts off) will clean your clock.

It is not the evil patent system that wiped out America’s engineering core. Rather it was the M’B”A students trying to figure out how to “innovate” new cost cutting methodologies for their corporate overseers who did it. Slowly but surely they outsourced one functionality after another until there was nothing left in the hollow shell that used to be America. Long live the quarterly profit reports.

Thank you by the way for your contributions in US patents 5,202,593 through 6,738,788.

Imagine now a future where 99% of engineering work in the world (including for products sold in USA) is done by giant China conglomerates and there is no longer a need for engineering work in the USA. (BTW, thank you for the past, but your services are no longer needed as an engineer in the USA in such a future.)

Suppose that in such a dark future you are working on your own or with a handful of unemployed fellow American engineers. Suppose you alone or with your rag tag army come up with an “idea” for the next great thing.

Now if you openly publicize your idea and try to “compete” in the so-called free market, you will be crushed marketing wise and perhaps in so many other ways by the giant conglomerates. You will have zero chance of success in a patentless world.

On the other hand, if the US government still recognizes patents in that dark future (probably they won’t because US gov’t will have been bought out anyway by foreign interest in control of UC v. FEC (SCt 2010) campaign corporations) you might still have a faint chance. Not much of a chance, but something.

In knocking down the patent system now, you make that dark future come into being all the more quickly. Thanks.

—————–
P.S. US copyright law does not have a “moral rights” provision of the kind you allude to with your tale about the SciFi author. If she has, of her own free will, sold her rights to the new “owner”, what right does she (or you) have to complain about the new owner altering the book? If I sell my blue colored car to a new owner and he paints it red, what right do I have to complain? I never intended for it to be red? Such a right does not exist under USA copyright laws.

Copyrights do not protect works, they protect revenue streams. One person who copyrighted her work was science fiction writer Zenna Henderson, who started chapters of her “the People” novels with Bible quotes. The current owner of her novels decided the Bible quotes were not commercial, and stripped them out of current editions. It is a copyright violation to print her stories the way she intended them.

I’m still inventing good stuff, while watching my peers “invent” mediocre stuff and license it to be exclusively manufactured in China. If they keep getting upset at us, it won’t be long before the mainland Chinese write their own patents on every trivial little thing, cutting out American engineers entirely, and using our own patent and legal systems to hold us in bondage. A trillion dollar trade deficit buys a lot of patent applications, and a lot of outsourced overseas patent examiners.

Oh well. If you do really good things for the world, they crucify you, then bury your good ideas in fantasy. If you sell out humanity, you get 30 pieces of silver.

But, remember, “pleonasm” is a figure of speech, and is no more to be despised than hyperbole, polysyndeton, or noema. They mean something, something specific. They are often the best words for the job.

They wouldn’t seem so obscure or “pretentious” if, in America, we had better educations, and more people read Quintilian.

“pretentious doesn’t exist, and if it did you wouldn’t want the alternative” – F. Hayek

I’ve always wondered about that .

apparently so ,

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ruthful

or underwear but there’s no inderwear or innerwear ?

can unjust also be injust ?

What about this for a cool word: Idiosyncrasy meaning a quirk,an eccentricity,a strange habit.

2 years ago I bet the gold will be $2000 or higher this coming May. Looks that I’m gonna loose this one and I have to pay for the dinner in a fancy restaurant. Damn the gold cartel!

Out of curiosity, do you wipe your feet before coming inside?

Otherwise the concept of self ownership would inapplicable. For example, in a case someone uses my “menthal aura” to create his own exorcism, I can’t expect his request for my approval of this activity. In fact, I couldn’t even understand how it would deal with me. Or if someone investigates the method of using my body in a parallel world, it would be ridiculous to claim my ownership unless such a using affects me in this world.

And just as is the case of using the information, even created by me. Your using it for yourself can’t (even potentially) run into contrary with any exercises of my own. That’s why it is wrong to apply the concept of self ownership to this situation.

Dear Stephan,

With due respect, let me suggest that once again you plunge yourself into a hypocritical position.

Mr. Martin is a sentient being.

By your own so-called rules of “natural” rights, he owns his body and he owns his work.

It is his work that is says Intellectual Property rights are legitimate rights even under Libertarian ideologies.

You are verbally attacking his work product and thus you do violence to his natural rights. Aren’t Libertarians supposed to be opposed to doing violence to the works of others?

Hypocrisy.
It of course knows no bounds and Libertarians are not exempt.

On a broader philosophical note, there are many creatures other than man who are sentient and occupy this planet. One would be hard put to argue for example that the great apes are not sentient when it has been shown they can be taught sign language and when this is done they express their inner sentient thoughts.

Given this, all great apes should be considered to own their bodies and own their labors when they are born because this is just as “natural” as any human being owning his/her body/labors when they are born.

So that means that when a human homesteader moves in on a territory previously worked upon by a great ape, that human is violating the natural property rights of the great ape. No?

Why aren’t you and ALL Libertarians out there defending the natural rights of all apes? So many of them are locked up in zoos and not allowed to own their bodies and own their labors. Where is the philosophical consistency?

Faré: Scarce things need not be property. they have a potential to be property (until someone comes along and homesteads it).

You have a right to sing any song (to use your body, to sing on your property and to not pollute the airwaves over property of others). It’s a question of property in body, land and airwaves, not on songs.

The right for me to sing a song belongs to someone. Is that someone me, or the copyright holder?

I am writing to inform you that the links I provided in Comment 1 no longer work. The new locations for them are:

____________

FOOTNOTE

The Effects of the Fourteenth Amendment on the Constitution of the United States

http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=327

Also,

A Look At Corfield (On Citizenship)

http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=331

____________

There is also the following which I think would be appropriate.

Comment on Petitioner’s Brief: McDonald v. City of Chicago

http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=91&Itemid=126

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/136777

____________

The Nolan Chart certainly sure been a successful educational device. It has helped ensure overwhelming voter support as exemplified by LP presidential candidates’ perennial .3% vote totals.

On a serious note, liberals simply cannot empathize regarding freedom for others not of their class. Or perhaps as to all other people. When a specific liberty clashes with their inherent propensity for acting as a know-it-all/Super-nanny/busy-body to other people, Super-nanny wins every time.

I am writing to inform you that the links I provided in Comment 1 no longer work. The new locations for them are:

____________

FOOTNOTE

The Effects of the Fourteenth Amendment on the Constitution of the United States

http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=327

Also,

A Look At Corfield (On Citizenship)

http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=331

____________

Almost 0% of musicians invented their instruments, the scales used, the beats used, the method of playing their instrument, or any of that stuff. It does not appear out of nowhere out of whole cloth. All artists are thieves. Period. If you don’t understand that you either don’t understand art or artists, or are just a willfully ignorant prick.

The difference is artists call the people they steal form their “influences”. Learn to decode euphemisms.

Your comment was crass, worthless, and added nothing to the IP debate.

Oh, and your first sentence is either called a Slippery Slope, Straw Man or Red Herring argument, depending on how you want to look at it. Which shows that you not only don’t understand art, but you are clueless on logical debating as well.

Just in case the blog software dislikes links to pictures: http://propertyandfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/pfs-group-2008-05.JPG

I guess one could find an utterance which can be twisted to say that but I would rather look at the deeds. Watch out Hans, there’s one sneaking up on you over your left shoulder!!!

And what were they doing in Turkey prompting this openly gay libertarian to reply to Prof. Hoppe: “Thank you for inviting me, I’m having the best time of my life so far”.

I’m glad you’re bringing this to the forefront, and I believe the issue of Misesian utilitarianism versus Randian and Rothbardian objective ethics is one that needs to be moved closer to resolution for theoretical libertarianism to move forward.

Your post here makes lots of good points, but in my opinion, overlooks important facts that would give your reader a more accurate picture of the history of this theoretical divide in the libertarian community.

First, Patrick M. O’Neils 1983 article “Ayn Rand and the Is-Ought Problem” (Journal of Libertarian Studies) is probably the definitive article making the case from a utilitarian point of view. I didn’t see you refer to this article in your post here, correct me if I’m wrong. I think a serious discussion about the ethics systems of Rand and Rothbard needs to address O’Neil’s challenge and either conclude that O’neil was indeed correct in his assessment, or incorrect. But if we just ignore it, we are left with the impression that Rand and Rothbard were somehow groping toward an “If X, then Y” type philosophy, whereas in fact, they were consciously trying to overcome and avoid precisely this kind of “means-ends” or utilitarian/consequentialist argument. Their systems are based on a positive and conscious critique of Humean/Misesian utilitarianism of the “If X, then Y” kind. As I understand it, they both were extremely hostile towards utilitarianism and utilitarians.

O’Neil’s article critiques the Randian/Rothbardian objective ethics systems in the context of Hume’s is-ought gap. Referring to what you write above, here is one of the primary issues at stake as phrased by O’Neil:

“If, for example, we say that “one ought to do x, in order that y,” we have made the obligation to do x dependent on some personal desire to have y occur.” (p.86)

This notion is precisely the notion that the objective ethics school is/was trying to overcome. The contention that this “if/then” approach is somehow connected with immorality is the very basis of objective ethics. Avoiding the “if-then” utilitarian/consequentialist analysis as a basis for ethical theorizing is the overriding imperative of objective ethics theorizing. Again, a critique of “if-then” analysis is the basis of objective ethics. This is the main point of The Ethics of Liberty, and also the primary gist of Long’s “Economics and Its Ethical Assumptions.” The attempt to avoid the standard, Misesian, means-ends analysis. The idea is that this kind of analysis “allows” immoral behavior, since it is left up to the individual to decide whether or not he wants to pursue X. Whether or not to pursue X is a “subjective” choice (choice of the subject), which then “allows” a person to act immorally by rejecting X. And thus objective ethicists search for a basis of ethics independent of the subjective choices (choices of subjects) of individuals.

As O’Neil writes regarding Rand (and this applies to Rothbard):

“There can be no doubt that she intends to construct an ethical system in which the standards of morality operate independently of their subjective acceptance by individual human wills.”(p.81)

It is clear from the replies of the defenders of the Randian/Rothbardian systems, that they vigorously denied this account of things. The proposition that their ethical theories reduce to or collapse to an “If X, then Y” consequentialist/utilitarian type proposition is exactly what they were denying.

Obviously this issue can’t be settled here by a series of blog posts. But what I think needs to be said clearly, and discussed and debated clearly, is that objective ethics is based on a critique of “If X, then Y” analysis, and claims that there is another approach that can arrive at an ‘objective’ standard of morality. But whenever these theories are closely examined, we find that the argument is indeed that “if” a person wants a certain thing or state of affairs X, “then” he “should” do thing or action Y.

When you write that Rand’s ethics theory is essentially “if X, then Y,” I believe it is important to add that she would have vigorously denied this notion. She was searching for a way to arrive at a basis of ethics that, as O’Neil correctly states, is independent of the subjective acceptance by individual wills.

To this, Mises replies:

“Man is capable of dying for a cause or of committing suicide. To live is for man the outcome of a choice, of a judgment of value.”(HA, 3rd rev. p.20)

Mises was obviously aware that the obligatory power of any “should”, is derived from the purpose of the individual concerned.

This is what O’Neil’s article discusses in clear detail, and O’Neil is making the same essential point that advanced utilitarians such as Mises and Hume made; that there is no standard of morality that doesn’t assume a purpose, and that purposes are purposes of individual subjects. This is what objective ethics first critiques (i.e., claims is false), and from this, attempts to construct an objective (nonsubjective) theory of ethics.

O’Neil concludes his article thusly:

“In conclusion, then, Ayn Rand’s system of Objectivist ethics does not provide the basis for a solution to the Humean dilemma of the is-ought gap; nor have attempts by a new generation of natural law ethicians to rework her system succeeded in subduing that central ethical difficulty. Since no ethical system has been demonstrated to have solved the is-ought problem, it may be thought a minor flaw in Rand. It is her specific claim to have overcome this difficulty that magnifies its importance in regard to her system.”(p.97)

In closing, my point is that I don’t think libertarian ethics theory can, so to speak, turn the corner, until libertarian social theorists come to view thinkers like Hume and Mises as foundational thinkers whose ideas can be built upon in constructing a libertarian ethics theory, as opposed to adversaries and “enablers” of immoral ethical codes whose ideas need to be disproved for libertarian ethics theory to succeed.

1. In any economic system there are a group of people who cost more to employ than they generate in return. There is no perfect measure to identify this cohort, however IQ is a fair proxy. I define the term IQ Employment Limit (IEL) to the highest IQ level at which more than 50% of that population are unemployed.
2. It is the business of Governments to provide for the population. Governments both right and left believe in the possibility of full employment. The Left believes in equality of outcome; “Everyone given the right chances can be successful”. The right believes in minimum Government; “Lack of employment is laziness”.
3. The sub-prime market emerged and was encouraged by both Clinton and Bush as it met their common agenda to manage the less economically productive members of society. It met the needs of a low inflation financial regime as it provided high returns from high interest rate mortgages.
4. A good mortgage in 1995, could be a bad mortgage in 2005. Lending to a cohort of similarly competent people in 1995 and 2005 is not the same. The job market is becoming inherently more difficult with simpler jobs being automated or offshored. People close to the limit of being economically productive in 1995 were unproductive in 2005.
5. The change in the level of capability to be employable in the market is a smooth change as it is driven by myriad technological and business process changes, however the change in banking practice and government policy is discontinuous. So unemployment waves come in shocks as policy makes a quantum shift to catch up with market conditions.

Consequences of this argument:
6. Since the IQ distribution of the population is not linear but is in a bell curve then as IEL increases at a steady rate of about a third of an IQ point per year, the impact on the population accelerates until an IEL of 100 is reached. This means that discontinuities in economic reality compared to Government and Banking policy are going to become more severe and more frequent over the next 20 or 30 years.
7. I guess d(IEL) of 1/3 IQ/yr. This is a conservative estimate of the rate of change of IEL, d(IEL). Futurologists suggest a technological singularity in 2040/2050. If this were true it would suggest a d(IEL) of 1.5IQ pt/yr leading to a singularity when IEL is at about 140 (more like at 2100!!). I reckon IEL is at about 80 today.
8. If we estimate a shock for every additional 4% of the population that are moved to be on the wrong side of IEL then the next shock will appear about 2015, additionally, since we are on the upward slope of the bell curve, the subsequent shock could happen as soon as 2018.
9. Government needs to radically reform policy to deal with d(IEL) as a real concept and as the major social force that will affect us over the next 30 years (yes more so than Global Warming or the Rise of China). Right now both Left and Right are complicit in ignoring the problem.
10. Even as more of us become incompetent in the workforce the world is getting richer and richer. People are out of work because systems can do the same job with better quality cheaper. There are plenty of resources available to fix the problem, just no thought on how to apply them.
11. It’s going to get us all in the end, the concept of the technological singularity means that ultimately we are all out of a job, I might think I’m smart, I might be ok for the next 10 years, but IEL will get our children if one of the discontinuities doesn’t get to you first!

I discovered your work through Lew Rockwell (and in turn, through the Ron Paul campaign). I emailed him asking him what was the libertarian thought regarding IP. I did not really identify myself as a libertarian then, but I was curious. Anyway, he suggested that I read “Against Intellectual Property.” I did and ended up finding someone else to look up to.

Anyway, thank you for being consistent, principled, and above all coherent.

PS: I find it amusing that became a libertarian through the Copyfight.

As a child I became wary of group behavior, of making exceptions for in-group folk that one wouldn’t for out-group, for dumping on outsiders, for group bully action, for the whole dynamic of in-group/out-group perversity.

These were proximate causes for me to opt to place liberty high in my value scale, as some economists might put it.

What convinced me of a generally liberal/individualist/libertarian paradigm, of a mostly consistent advocacy of a general, basic right to liberty, and extrapolating its consequences, was learning more about the subjective nature of value. The dispersal of knowledge, the inevitability of valuation differences from mere situational differences as well as more core personality diversity, led me to understand the need for a strong position of principle in the basic rule of law. Values and agreement alone cannot do it, because values vary too much. One has to reach deeper, and search for what David Friedman identifies as Schelling Points, and which he identifies with basic liberty and property rights. I adopted this approach while reading Mises’ THE ULTIMATE FOUNDATION OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE.

So, I remain a libertarian, of sorts, because it meets the requirements of my individualistic challenges to basic problems of people in conflict. It thus matches most of my moral instincts.

I see it not as others do, though. I see it as a balancing of human personality forces, of schemes for supremacy and advantage. Liberty, it seems to me, is the ideal Middle Way. It thus fits with many moral notions that are age-old, but were rarely applied in ancient times to politics.

They are still rarely applied, because people get sucked into the idea of gaining more from others via political special favors, and get caught in the traps of statism.

Pity the folk. They cannot think their way out. Worse yet, we have actual obstacles to freer living now, because others feel trapped and remain addicted to both initiatory and extravagantly vindictive coercion as a way of life.

Instead I am a libertarian after observing that nobody actually “knows” anything, especially in social science. Its just one belief replaced by other and various group of people call it variously, the most popular ones being knowledge, ideology, value, morality etc.

I am a libertarian once I observed that all knowledge is just ” pretense of knowledge” : thanks Hayek

I am a libertarian once I oberved that ” experience is king” and every experience is subjective

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/face-of-the-day-3.html

It matters when establishing who is the principal and who is the agent.

“The President WANTED the bomber to bomb Nagasaki. Tat was the end of his action. The diretors usually do NOT direct managers to direct employees to be negligent or commit crimes. Bu anyway, the shareholders don’t direct anyone.”

Not individually but they do have collective ownership rights. If they didn’t have any ownership rights they would just be creditors, why then do they get any vote at all on how the corporation is run? At the very least they are helping to fund the corporation. In your example if a group of people voluntarily donated to the president on condition that they collectively would decide how things would be run including who they would delegate this task to would they not then be responsible for his actions?
This isn’t to say that nothing like limited liability could arise, who knows what sort of contracts we’ll end up with, but it’s not as clear cut as either side of the debate is arguing. I think in a libertarian world people would have to be more careful about what they got themselves involved in. Also liability has to fall on someone eventually so if established on a contract by contract basis rather than by the state the people who now hold all liability might not agree to those terms anymore. I think you would end up with a joint-stock company that functions in a very similar way to a partnership.

“Because ownership is such a big part of a free market? Is your version of libertarianism without ownership? Without the concept of ownership then how do you buy/sell/control? And I would add in “take responsibility”, though this seems to be unpopular here.”

Property rights specify who gets to control things. Libertarianism has a view as to this. What people do contractually with such property is their business.

Libertarianism also specifies what actions are not permissible–what constitutes aggression. Aggression is the invasion of the borders of others’ property.

From this it does not follow that one “is responsible for” one’s property.

Because ownership is such a big part of a free market? Is your version of libertarianism without ownership? Without the concept of ownership then how do you buy/sell/control? And I would add in “take responsibility”, though this seems to be unpopular here.

It seems to me that any free market system must determine what ownership means and what is the rights and responsibilities of ownership.

So I think that a definition of what ownership means is central to a free market and part of that definition is who actually owns a corporation. If your version of a free market is different and does not need clear ownership then I guess I have a different idea of what a free market is?

What does it matter? They are acting for their own interrests, surely, but also for the benefit of a multitude of market actors–creditors, employees, and so on.

” Surely the managers and employees are hired to follow the instructions of the people who own the business and those people, like the president bombing nagasaki, are responsible for the actions of their agents if those agents are indeed following their instructions.”

The President WANTED the bomber to bomb Nagasaki. Tat was the end of his action. The diretors usually do NOT direct managers to direct employees to be negligent or commit crimes. Bu anyway, the shareholders don’t direct anyone.

A collective right is not a right, but a mere shadow of a right. This is why second amendment advocates insist on an individualist interpretation of the second amendment: if we “collectively” have the right to bear arms, then that right is fulfilled when only the army and the police are allowed to own arms. Similarly, in the Soviet Union, the people had a “collective” right to free speech; this was fulfilled by the State newspapers, which spoke for the people.

To say that the shareholders have a collective right to use the boardrooms for daycare is true–but it means absolutely nothing to the individual shareholder who wishes to do so!

As for those individuals who are stuck in a high-rise condo: it’s true that they collectively took on that responsibility; why can’t they collectively decide to revoke that responsibility, and declare that they will only do the bare minimum of maintenance of the other condos, to make sure that the building doesn’t collapse on them?

And why, after foreclosure, aren’t the banks who now own the condos responsible for the maintenance of those condos?

Of course, those in the condo could *choose* to continue maintenance, because they fear that the value of their condos could be hurt if they don’t: but it’s up to them to decide that!

“”"If you declare that you own something does this not mean that you control it, and if you control it does this not make it your responsibility?”"‘

But if I only own 1/1000 of a company, then shouldn’t that mean, *at best*, I should only own 1/1000 of the responsibility of the corporation, when management decides to do something evil? Even when that management does so without my consent (which may have even been the case for 999/1000 or 1000/1000 of the stockholders)?

And what of those who own that little bit because a Mutual Funds Manager decided that the company would be a good investment? Should the stockholder *still* be held responsible?

And to what degree are they already held accountable, when, because of a scandal, the value of the little piece of owned stock plummets? When that happens, should the stockholder sell the stock to avoid responsibility, or should the stockholder hold onto it, and hope that after the scandal has been uncovered, that the management would do the right thing and correct the scandalous behavior?

For that matter, if a stockholder holds onto his stock, but demands the resignation of the management that caused the scandal in the first place, would he be automatically absolved of responsibility? Or will he have to wait up to a year to attempt to vote the management out?

I’m sorry if I still can’t see why stockholders should have complete responsibility for what a corporation does. I think you attribute too much power to the stockholder!

Of course, but it’s not as if ownership is an irrelevant concept in this situation. If the shareholders don’t own the corporation then who are the managers acting on behalf of? Surely the managers and employees are hired to follow the instructions of the people who own the business and those people, like the president bombing nagasaki, are responsible for the actions of their agents if those agents are indeed following their instructions.

“If the President intends to (say) bomb Nagasaki, and uses the bombadier and pilots and military itself as a means to accomplish this goal, he is responsible for that action. But if you own a share of Wal-Mart stock, you are not using its stockboy as an agent to negligently mop the floor to cause a woman to slip and fall.”

No of course not. The stockboy is liable to you (via the managers) because he has broken the terms of his employment contract. So this example describes a completely different situation to the one being discussed.

But you restrict yourself to the individual stockowners. But by the act of purchasing stock in a corporation that individual has joined a collective of stockowners who have total control of that corporation. As I pointed out, collectively they can do anything they want with that corporation. And as I pointed out some people may object to that collectivization but I am not the one who put these people into a collective, they did. If you don’t want to be part of a collective then don’t buy into a collective.

Its like buying into a high rise condo. You are now part of a collective and collectively you are responsible for that building. Just go ask the people who are now in trouble because they find out that a lot of the units in the condo are in foreclosure or abandoned and the remaining owners are ending up with the bill for maintenance and other collective costs for that building. And it does not matter about the management since the owners are the ones ultimately responsible

So if stockowers are just lenders, who owns these corporations?

Does not ownership signify control?

Or is ownership no longer a libertarian idea?

Do all libertarians reject the idea of ownership?

What is the libertarian belief toward ownership? Is it just a benefit, do you only receive a positive from ownership and all negatives are ignored. Since everything has both positive and negative aspects who ends up with the negative aspects of ownership? If you declare that you own something does this not mean that you control it, and if you control it does this not make it your responsibility?

I agree with Kinsella: owning stock is akin to giving the business a loan, and (in some cases) you get to have a little bit of say in the goings-on of the company: you get to attend a stock-holder’s meeting (if you could travel there), and then you get a vote for every piece of stock you own.

Sure, you could provide *some* guidance this way; you could sell your stock, *if* you know that management is going to do X (although that may be “insider trading”, whatever that means); but you *do not run the company*. The management does.

Thus, it’s a stretch to say that shareholders (or other employees, or customers, or other “enablers”) should be held responsible for what management does.

The only way I could see that they should be held liable is if the shareholders vote to do X, against the management’s wishes…even then, management has the opportunity to resign rather than to do X.

Collectively the shareowners can do anything they want with that company including using the boardroom for a party. They can sell it, they can burn it to the ground, they can fire everyone, they can hire anyone who consents to being hired. They are the ultimate power, they own it.

Individually they don’t have much power unless they own 51% of the stock but collectively they own the company. Some may object to this collectivization but if so they need to object to the stockowners who joined together collectively to own the company

But why do you call a shareholder an “owner”? Just because the law does? Can you go use Intel’s boardroom for a party if you are shareholder? Can you drive a FedEx truck if you are a shareholder?

“I find it strange that anyone who advocates a free market based on ownership would so want to water down ownership to the point that a stockowner is nothing but a dividend recipient”

? it’s not me who wants to, it’s shareholders! I say, capitalist acts among consenting adults are fine!

Ownership is an action. You have declared that something is your property, that it is under your exclusive control.

If you declare that you own a tree and you prevent anyone else from using it or even inspecting it and that tree then falls over onto your neighbors car who is responsible? You a second before were claiming that you had exclusive rights to that tree, don’t you also have exclusive responsibility? Or does it suddenly change when you stop getting benefits from ownership but now must take responsibility?

You are not advocating libertarianism, but instead libertinism. Rights without responsibilities, benefits without costs

[quote]Why single out that one class of people? [/quote]
Because that one class of people have declared that Wal-Mart is their property and they have exclusive rights to it and how it is both run and disposed of.
[quote]Not true. The shareholders elect the board of directors. The directors appoint officers. The officers hire managers and other employees.[/quote]
And yet the shareowners collectively have the right and the power to run that corporation anyway they want including who they hire, what products they make, how it is disposed of. They paid for the right to have ultimate power, but you say they do not have ultimate responsibility?

[quote]What if you loan money to a company, and they owe you money.[/quote]
Lending is not ownership, the only thing you own is the money. If you want to lend money to a corporation then do so, if you want to own it then you both have rights and responsibilities to that corporation. But I would not lend money to your corporation since nobody seems to have any responsibility for that borrowing and I am out of luck if it is not paid back. If I ask you, you will give me a song and dance about it not being the owners responsibility and in fact there is no one responsible for anything that corporation does

I find it strange that anyone who advocates a free market based on ownership would so want to water down ownership to the point that a stockowner is nothing but a dividend recipient

So you seem to want to remove responsibility for the stockowners? If owning the stock of the company does not make you an owner then who actually owns the company? Is there no ownership in your version of libertarianism?

People are responsible for their actions, not for their status-as-owners, espec. when that status is a state-decreed one that is not completely realistic and is somewhat artificial. Take a look at my paper on causation. If the President intends to (say) bomb Nagasaki, and uses the bombadier and pilots and military itself as a means to accomplish this goal, he is responsible for that action. But if you own a share of Wal-Mart stock, you are not using its stockboy as an agent to negligently mop the floor to cause a woman to slip and fall. You are no more causally responsible for the stockboy’s actions than are a host of other individuals in society who also have various causal ties to Wal-Mart, including other employees, the unions, vendors, customers, creditors, even debtors. Why single out that one class of people? You can envision a complicated web of interconnections. It’s arbitrary to single one person out just because the state classifies them “as owners”–see my post The Over-reliance on State Classifications: “Employee” and “Shareholder”. Just because of the state’s crude feudalist-based legal conceptual framework which puts that residual rights holder as “owner”, we don’t have to accept this substantively. If you own a share of Wal-Mart stock can you go use its boardroom for your kid’s birthday party? Are you even entitled into its offices? Can you direct an employee to drive a truck negligent, or carefully? Can you drive the truck yourself? No. forget the state’s classificaiton. You can say they are an owner but ownership is hte right to control. The right to control what? The assets of Wal-Mart? Not directly, as a normal owner could, that’s for sure; and even if you could, why does that make you responsible for employee actions? You don’t hire the employees. You don’t supervise, manage, or direct them.

Take a look also at Hessen on this: The excerpt (here) in this post.

Also does ownership confer responsibility? You seem to want the benefits of ownership but none of the responsibility?

What kind of reasoning is this? Where is the rule that “ownership confers responsibility”? Ownership is the right to control. If you steal my gun I still own it. If you murder someone with it am I “responsible”? After all, I am “the owner”. No, I am not–why? Because it was not my action. It was your action. We are responsible for our actions.

You also seem to think that the stockowners have no responsibility for the management of the corporation. Yet they are the ones who collectively vote for the management and who can collectively remove them.

Not true. The shareholders elect the board of directors. The directors appoint officers. The officers hire managers and other employees.

Finally if you are going to create a corporation where the owners have no responsibility for what the corporation does and that responsibility is put on the management and workers then what use is the owners? If the management and workers are doing the work and bearing the costs then they simply start up their own business and leave the stockowners out

What if you loan money to a company, and they owe you money. Does this make you responsible for what they do? What about non-voting shareholders? What about shareholders who just don’t vote? What about those who vote for a losing director?

Here are some basic rules of reason that you might want to consider.

Occam’s Razor: The simplest explanation is most likely correct.

Hume’s Corollary: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Property Rights: In every case it has been tested, property rights result in increased productivity out of the asset. The Pilgrims almost were starved to extinction by ignoring this rule.

Patents are property rights, they are consistent with the historical basis for property rights – namely Locke’s labor (mental and physical) theory of property rights.

Occam’s and Hume’s rules are not applicable to the normative case. And even if they are, they would imply that the burden of proof is on you, who support the extraordinary claim that the state–the most murderous, evil, inefficient agency ever known to man–can actually enhance overall social welfare by handing out state monopoly privileges. What is your evidence? That you think America has been a success since its founding, and since our founding we’ve had IP law. This is among the shoddiest reasoning I’ve ever seen. If you have a proof that the patent system is an overall or net benefit, let’s see it. All you need to do is provide evidence that shows conclusively that the patent system is worth it overall. Such a study would need to show (a) the costs of the patent system, in dollar terms, (b) the benefits of the patent system, in dollar terms, and (c) the net difference, presumably positive. I’ve assembled the large number of studies I’m aware of; none of them concludes this. See: Yet Another Study Finds Patents Do Not Encourage Innovation.

Those countries with the greatest amount of technological innovation and technology diffusion have patent laws. These countries are also the richest in the world.

They also have a mafia, a tax system, antitrust laws, and anti-drug laws. Are those things also conducive to economic growth? Is correlation causation in your mind?

But somehow the anti-patent crowd expect us to ignore Occam’s razor and fails to provide extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claim. This is not reason, it is not scholarship, it is cynicism or theology.

Your comments betray the scientism and lack of familiarity with ethical reasoning typical of engineers (see my various posts on the limitations of the scientistic engineering mentality here). You are doing what typical engineers do: trying to cram the philosophy of science by brute force into your scientistic categories, trying to reinvent the wheel with limited tools. We all have values and norms, and they are not all “theology”. You yourself seem to be in favor of the patent system–this is a normative position, not a merely factual one. Your reasoning in turn rests on more basic norms. By your own “reasoning” this is some religion of yours too. Your crude attempts to “reason” using Occam’s razor are really embarrassing. If you really want to inform yourself before spouting off on such topics read Mises’s Ultimate Foundations of Economic Science or Hoppe’s Economic Science and the Austrian Method.

Occam’s Razor: The simplest explanation is most likely correct.

Hume’s Corollary: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Property Rights: In every case it has been tested, property rights result in increased productivity out of the asset. The Pilgrims almost were starved to extinction by ignoring this rule.

Patents are property rights, they are consistent with the historical basis for property rights – namely Locke’s labor (mental and physical) theory of property rights.

Those countries with the greatest amount of technological innovation and technology diffusion have patent laws. These countries are also the richest in the world.

But somehow the anti-patent crowd expect us to ignore Occam’s razor and fails to provide extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claim. This is not reason, it is not scholarship, it is cynicism or theology.

Also does ownership confer responsibility? You seem to want the benefits of ownership but none of the responsibility?

You also seem to think that the stockowners have no responsibility for the management of the corporation. Yet they are the ones who collectively vote for the management and who can collectively remove them. You may object to this idea of collectivization but that is what a stock corporation is. A voluntary collective organization and if you don’t want to take responsibly for what that collective does then you should not buy into it.

Finally if you are going to create a corporation where the owners have no responsibility for what the corporation does and that responsibility is put on the management and workers then what use is the owners? If the management and workers are doing the work and bearing the costs then they simply start up their own business and leave the stockowners out

Thank you for submitting this cool story – Trackback from CodingFuture…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws

Still, it is definitely obscene but not as bad as what was shown above.

Still my first reaction was that they were.

Anyway, sorry about that….

You might want to remove those pictures. They appear to be frauds (note that the woman’s pose on the left does not match the X-ray version on the right).

See this post for more detail; http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/01/god-dammit-i-hate-being-duped-by.html
(Apparantly the naked woman does know she is naked on the internet..she ist a German model).

While I agree completely with your comments on the ‘Slate liberals’ defending these scanners, I think using these pictures undermines your crticisms.

Best,
Richard Moss

(Since you often have questions about what distinguishes left-libertarianism from “normal” libertarianism, Stephan, I would say this is a great opportunity to see it in action: they are more likely than not to catch and comment on things like that while still making the same general point about the privacy invasion itself, all without being unlibertarian. For what is the opposition to the scanner if not an opposition to authoritarian paternalism which is then itself expressed (unconsciously or not) in the patriarchal paternalism of the caption? There is a tension in the grounds thickness realm IMO.)

http://www.bildblog.de/14866/kehraus-2009/

Adam Smith considered the division of labor as one of the most important methods of increasing a nation’s wealth. Without a strong patent system, many talented engineers, scientists, and inventors waste their time on playing politics and honing their management skills instead of focusing on inventing. Only by playing politics and becoming managers can these people increase their income. Since we know that technological innovation is the key to real per capita increases in income (see Robert Solow who won the Nobel Prize in economics for showing this), we want a system where talented inventors focus on inventing. Despite your cynical portrait of the inventing process, a company that focusing on inventing, as opposed to production, is similar to what a University does. Dolby is a company that has focused on inventing instead of production. Dolby has been a major benefactor to the audio industry and the economy. Qualcomm is a company that focused on inventing instead of production. As a result, they have been able to create the technology of CDMA for cellular telephones. Without a strong patent system Dolby’s business model would not be possible.

As the U.S. changes from an industrial economy to an information economy, more people will need to be employed in the processes of inventing instead of production. How exactly are these people going to be compensated for their efforts without a patent system?

Dale B. Halling, Author of the “Decline and Fall of the American Entrepreneur: How Little Known Laws and Regulations are Killing Innovation.” http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-American-Entrepreneur-Regulations/dp/1439261369/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262124667&sr=8-1

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-other-faq/c-other-faq-type/c-other-faq-type-knitting.htm

….er, selling knitted clothes that they made with their own wool and labour? Er….

And the commenters are just being childish douchebags.

Since you made no substantive reason for why he’s a socialist jerk, they’re simply whining because they don’t like someone they like being criticized, for whatever reason, which is the antithesis of free thought and critical thinking.

“WAAA! Carl Sagan is brilliant and that means if you say bad things about him your bad. DONT CALL HIM A JERK!! YOUR THE JERK!” etc

I much prefer the quote that Libman showed me.

“If there is life on Mars, I believe we should do nothing with Mars.
Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes.” – Carl Sagan

If I get to mars, first thing I’m going to do after opening a strip mine and a strip club, is carve CARL SAGAN in 500 foot letters into the martian regolith.

fucking weak ass human hater. The kind of douches who think “nature” is something separate from humans, that beavers should build their dams, termites should build their hives, and all animals can fuck with whatever other animals they want.

except humans. we should leave everything pristine as if we were never here. WE shouldn’t make an impact or change anything, even though we have the most wondrous capacity for it.

fuck that. put my body on the LHC when i die and blast me into an endangered eagle.

The two Bush presidents are leftists. The younger Bush’s leftism can be seen in his socialist Wall Street Bailout and his compulsion to invade other countries. Leftists do not respect the lives and property of others. They are invaders. Capitalists on the right (because they are “right”) have respect for the lives and property of others–they do not invade. The elder Bush is a “New World Order” globalist-leftist. “Read my lips–no new taxes!” he raised taxes–more taking, more stealing, more coveting, etc. And he invaded Iraq first. The elder Bush is a leftist (and a nincompoop).

So, in the end, there are too many leftists in the world and not enough “rightists.” I hope we can change that. I hope.

Steve

What exactly are we trying to flesh out here?

Yeah, and if you enslave a black person then there is no “white supremacist crime”. Which leads to the question, perhaps there is something wrong with your libertarian moral reasoning, just like there is something wrong with white supremacist moral reasoning.

Surely the examples I gave were immoral. Certainly private vices are not crimes. However blackmail is not a private vice. Blackmail is immoral, is not private, and is calculated to effect someone else. It does not have the attributes used to argue for the non-criminality of vices ala Lysander Spooner.

Negative rights, the ones normally enshrined by libertarians, are all about being left alone by others. A blackmailer is certainly violating a principle of leaving others alone when he coerces his victim. He violates the right of the victim by imposing a objectionable choice on him that unjustly takes his work product, without providing anything the blackmailer created on his own.

I leave it to your readers to read my article “Informational Property: Logorights” — and all you can muster against it — then decide for themselves.

I’m done exhausting myself re-answering the same refuted points endlessly.

The real-world difference between two otherwise identical books — one with the composed text of Atlas Shrugged and one with the composed text of A Tale of Two Cities — is the composition of words. These are objective differentia that can be discovered by either human readers or even machine intelligence. The compositions, as information, have different mathematical values that can be calculated.

They are not otherwise “identical”–they are two distinct books. A and B. Just as two “otherwise identical” gold coins are not the same coin. But sure, they have a similar configuration. I fail to see how this is relevant for property rights. If I see your log cabin and build an “identical one” I have stolen nothing from you. We each own our own log cabins–no matter how identical they appear or are shaped.

It is a true statement that there are minute differences in every single object that exists. But the word “duplicate” is a meaningful term in that the essential utility of a book is to be read

? I know this. I never denied this. You seem to think this is wresting some huge admission from me, as if it automatically leads to IP. It does not. So what if two objects can be described as similar or duplicates? They are still distinct things. And anyway, if having-a-duplicate somehow violated the rights of the owner-of-the-original, then …. this would cover only copyright, not patent, and it would cover only literal copying, not the bundle of copyright such as derivative works. And it would be hyper-copyright–it would never expire; and original creation would not be a defense (as it is in copyright law). And how would it cover patents? Take a method patent. There are now no similar objects. Just similar actions, say actions of one’s body. If A moves his body in such-and-such-way, now he “owns” this pattern-of-moving, and can use force to stop B from moving his own body in that way (and remember, patents are not about copying at all–A can stop B even if B comes up with this sequence of steps indendently).

Yes yes, I know you’ll say you don’t support modern patent and copyright law. You only support logorights, which is even more extreme. And though you won’t endorse patent and copyright law, you’ll condemn those who want to abolish it.

the essential quality of a book — why human beings go to the trouble of manufacturing them — is that they are convenient means of recording and transporting the printed words, symbols, and art work on the pages.

Of course.

Atlas Shrugged is identified as a distinct commodity by its words, whether they exist printed in a hardcover book, or a paperback book, or read aloud as a recording, or as bits of data stored or transmitted digitally. The entity that is Atlas Shrugged is an information object — a real-world thing — separate, distinguishable by man or machine, and valued apart from the multiplicity of physical forms on which it may be recorded or performed.

Sure, you can conceptually identify the pattern of words that is Atlas Shrugged. (Not sure you can objectively identify works that violate the copyright sub-right to make “derivative works”, or objectively justify and define “fair use” exceptions, those sorts of things.) So what? I can identify also the method of using fire to cook food, using animal hide to make clothes, using logs to make a log cabin, using a chiseled rock as a knife, and so on. So? Just because we can conceptually identify patterns does not give you ownership of these patterns.

The usefulness — utility — which human beings have for this objectively and observably distinct information object — this thing — is based on the presence, intactness, completeness, and availability — of that objectively and observably distinctinformation object.

The subjective value which any human being will or will not assign to this objectively and observably distinct information object will be based on the objectively and observably distinct identity.

A human being will take action with respect to acquiring, using, keeping, or discarding that objectively and observably distinct information object because no matter how many different objects, forms, or transformations it goes through IT’S IDENTITY IS THE SAME AND THEREFORE IT IS THE SAME THING.

Sure, people value certain works of authorship because of the patterns. But your notion that objects A and B “are the same thing” is utterly bizarre. Putting it this way is really just a complicated way of begging the question. Consider: I invent the transistor. A month later you independently invent it. Soon you and I are both manufacturing and selling these cool transistors. They are both transistors. Sure. They both use the same idea that transistors are based on. The reason people value these things is because … they are transistors. But your truck of transistors and my truck of transistors, even though they are all transistors–even if they have identical looks and characteristics–are not “the same”. There’s that truckload, and this truckload, just like you have a gold eagle and I have a gold eagle. And sure, you can say the transistors are all “the same” in some relevant sense–fine. So what? It doesn’t give me the right to stop you from making your transistors.

That which makes it a distinct thing — that which gives it distinct utility — that which makes it distinctly an object of desire by a human being’s subjective perceptions and choice — is its material identity.

That which makes it a thing makes it ownable.

He who creates it is its first owner.

This is some wild metaphysical legerdemain here. So… I can use force against you to stop you from selling transistors… that you invented … because … “That which makes it a thing makes it ownable.” and “He who creates it is its first owner.” You can’t be serious. What kind of reasoning is this?

In the transistor example above, you own your own body and various material. It already has an owner. As its owner, you have the right to use it. I don’t gain some veto-right over your use of your own property merely by thinking of a way to use my own property.

You seem to think that if we can conceptually identify a “thing,” then “it” can have an “owner”. Only ownable things can have an owner. Ownership specifies who can use a given thing. The only purpose of such a rule is if the thing can only be used by one person at a time–if use by one person excludes use by another–if the thing is a scarce resource. The libertarian rule is that for such things, to avoid conflict the right to own is assigned to the homesteader–the first user, the one who appropriates it out of the state of nature. Your rule would underming the Lockean homesteading rule by allowing “ownership” of any “thing” that you can conceptually give “identity” to… but of course, though you grant all these conceptual entities existential status, though you say they are just as real, just as ownable as material things, you of course want to enforce rights in these ephemeral ontological ownable things in the real, physical world. If I “steal” your “ideal object” or “informational object” by … using my own property in certain ways, then you want to use physical, real force (not merely “informational force”) against my real, tangible body or my real, tangible property (say, my money) to stop me or penalize me. When the rubber hits the road, IP advocates always turn to the real world of scarce things and real force to enforce their rights to the “informational objects” floating around up there in the Platonic realms.

Those who respect property rights must respect that if a thing can be identified as unique and different –and can be recognized as a thing created by someone — that its creator owns it.

Your mistake is in assuming that any “thing” can be owned. There are an infinite number of “things” out there–the human mind can conceptually understand the world in any number of ways. My love for my poodle “exists”. The fact-that-the-earth-rotated-today exists. My ability-to-jog exists. Poems exist. Crime exists. There “are” facts. I “have” memories. Perfume scents “exist.” Physics equations and mathematical algorithms “exist.” The method of long division is a “thing”. It is obviously ludicrous to assert that just because I can define or name or conceptualize a “thing” that it does, or even can, have an owner. We do not even get to the question of “who owns that thing?” unless the thing is an ownable thing. Not all things are ownable things. What is ownable? Only scarce resources. Information is not a scarce resource. You and I can both use the transistor-idea at the same time.

You jump around between objective and subjective — between cognitive and normative — in an attempt to hide the difference.

It is a true statement that there are minute differences in every single object that exists. But the word “duplicate” is a meaningful term in that the essential utility of a book is to be read (yes, I know books can be used by interior decorators and also be used to hold up a broken table leg or as a paper weight) but the essential quality of a book — why human beings go to the trouble of manufacturing them — is that they are convenient means of recording and transporting the printed words, symbols, and art work on the pages.

Atlas Shrugged is identified as a distinct commodity by its words, whether they exist printed in a hardcover book, or a paperback book, or read aloud as a recording, or as bits of data stored or transmitted digitally. The entity that is Atlas Shrugged is an information object — a real-world thing — separate, distinguishable by man or machine, and valued apart from the multiplicity of physical forms on which it may be recorded or performed.

The usefulness — utility — which human beings have for this objectively and observably distinct information object — this thing — is based on the presence, intactness, completeness, and availability — of that objectively and observably distinctinformation object.

The subjective value which any human being will or will not assign to this objectively and observably distinct information object will be based on the objectively and observably distinct identity.

A human being will take action with respect to acquiring, using, keeping, or discarding that objectively and observably distinct information object because no matter how many different objects, forms, or transformations it goes through IT’S IDENTITY IS THE SAME AND THEREFORE IT IS THE SAME THING.

That which makes it a distinct thing — that which gives it distinct utility — that which makes it distinctly an object of desire by a human being’s subjective perceptions and choice — is its material identity.

That which makes it a thing makes it ownable.

He who creates it is its first owner.

Those who respect property rights must respect that if a thing can be identified as unique and different –and can be recognized as a thing created by someone — that its creator owns it.

The rest of my logorights argument uses commonly accepted theories of ownership and history of property rights transactions in the real world — to show how ownership rights in material identity can be claimed, recognized, traded, and protected — just like all other naturally occurring property rights — without the existence of the State.

At this point, Stephan Kinsella, I am writing only to your readers. I do not consider that you have any actual interest in understanding what I am writing and I think you are being what the Catholics refer to as invincibly ignorant on this topic.

Neil

Once again your reply to my Logorights argument is merely to assert that it’s false without actually refuting any of the proofs I make. All you do is say “Well Locke said this” and “Tibor Machan said that.” I don’t care. I say outright that I’m offering a new theory of property rights — and not once — not ever — have you ever dealt with it other than to say, “Well, that’s not what [insert name here] wrote!”

I think all your theories are the same: if you “create” “value,” you have a “right” to it. This is just confused and groundless.

1) You fail to answer my challenge that material identity IS property, and that without material identity the concept of property is meaningless.

I think you are playing tricks with the Randian concept of “identity.” Saying that “the value” of a CD (say) is “in” its “logos” and therefore that it is the same as a copy of the CD proves nothing. It doesn’t prove that your discovery of a way of using or impatterning your property gives you all of a sudden a magical right to control how others use their property.

“You go into a Waldenbooks and plunk down cash for a book that says on the cover “ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand.” You get it home … and the first sentence is, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”

Now, what you bought is a book and this book has got everything that makes a book a book: a binding, hundreds of sheets of paper with printed ink impressions on it, and a cover. Let’s even pretend that the book you took home has the same number of pages, the same dimensions and weight, the same binding and style of printing as the book with the composition called ATLAS SHRUGGED. Do you have any just cause of complaint if the composition of words inside the book turns out to be something other than what the cover says? If you answer no, then you got everything you paid for. But if you answer yes, then you are saying that the composition of words makes this book a different commodity from the book you thought you were buying, and therefore you are rightfully entitled to a copy of the composition of words labelled ATLAS SHRUGGED.”

Sure it’s “different.” Being “different” does not give you property rights in the difference. And sure, you didn’t get what you paid for: you transferred title to the money on condition you received a certain book. You didn’t get what you bargained for. IP of course has nothing to do with contract. So this is all irrelevant.

Does the difference in composition of words make an otherwise identical physical object a different thing — yes or no?

Neil, of course–even if you have two “identical” copies of Atlas they are still “different things.”

Did the buyer who expected to get a copy of Atlas Shrugged and who got a copy of A Tale of Two Cities get what they paid for — yes or no?

Of course not.

If the answer is yes to either of these questions, then you have conceded that the composition of words — the logos — is the sole differentia between two physical objects — and therefore the logos is what makes it a different THING.

First, I think you got your examples confused–I think you meant if I answer yes to the first or no to the second. In any event, you wrong: the two objects are “different things” even if they have the same look, pattern etc.

If the logos makes these two otherwise identical objects different things then that which makes them different things is what gives them their value — and the property rights case for the logos is made.

What “gives them their value”? They don’t “have” value. Value is not objective, or intrinsic, or some substance. Rather, people demonstrate that they value things in their actions. I assume you agree with this.

You seem to think it is extracting some huge concession of me to get me to admit that the reason a typical consumer values a book (say) is because of what pattern it has. I readily agree to this. I value a box of paperclips more than a hunk of metal of the same weight because of the way the metal is shaped in the case of the paperclips. So what? I value a new condom more than a ripped one because of its “logos,” its material configuration. So what?

Same with a set of paints and a blank canvas. If I use my talent to apply the paint to the canvas–rearranging the logos of the paint-canvas matter into a new one–to result in a beautiful painting, I have made it more valuable–in that I can sell it for a higher price. Sure. Why? Because the buyer would prefer it to the blank canvas. Who has ever denied that transforming–rearranging–the patterns of your work makes it more valuable–to you, or to others? But this does not mean you have property right in the logos, in the pattern. That doesn’t follow.

Even Rand acknowledged most of this: as she once wrote:

The power to rearrange the combinations of natural elements is the only creative power man possesses. It is an enormous and glorious power—and it is the only meaning of the concept “creative.” “Creation” does not (and metaphysically cannot) mean the power to bring something into existence out of nothing. “Creation” means the power to bring into existence an arrangement (or combination or integration) of natural elements that had not existed before.

Of course, there cannot be property rights in value since this would have to mean property rights in arrangements or patterns, which would then give the owner of the arrangement rights in other people’s already-owned property. If Rand had kept her focus on the fact that rearranging already-existing property can indeed make that property more valuable, she would have realized that creation (rearrangement) is not an independent source of property rights: if you rearrange your own property, even if this makes it more valuable, you already owned the property that you have rearranged (made more valuable). Yet this does not give you rights in other people’s property. You can re-word the Randian view as follows: if you make your property more valuable, it gives you additional property rights–the right to prevent other people from making their own property more valuable. And this makes it all the more obviously flawed.

This is where the Misesian approach to subjectivist value makes sense: things have value to a valuer; values do not exist independently as free-floating things that can themselves be owned. And again, Rand should have recognized this; e.g., she once wrote, “Material objects as such have neither value nor disvalue; they acquire value-significance only in regard to a living being—particularly, in regard to serving or hindering man’s goals.” (For more on the compatibility between Objectivism and Austrian economics, see Mises and Rand (and Rothbard); Randian Hoppe(?), Austrian Rand(?).) So she should have realized that if rearranging owned property makes the owner or potential buyers value the object more, it does not mean there is any additional thing created for which we need to find an owner.

Answer that. Answer that!!!!!!!!!

I think I have. It gains you nothing. The fact remains that by giving people rights in “logos”–in patterns–you give them a right to control the already owned property of other people. It lets the re-homestead already-homesteaded property. This is transfer of wealth. It’s theft.

Once again your reply to my Logorights argument is merely to assert that it’s false without actually refuting any of the proofs I make. All you do is say “Well Locke said this” and “Tibor Machan said that.” I don’t care. I say outright that I’m offering a new theory of property rights — and not once — not ever — have you ever dealt with it other than to say, “Well, that’s not what [insert name here] wrote!”

1) You fail to answer my challenge that material identity IS property, and that without material identity the concept of property is meaningless.

Answer this challenge from my article:

” You go into a Waldenbooks and plunk down cash for a book that says on the cover “ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand.” You get it home … and the first sentence is, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”

Now, what you bought is a book and this book has got everything that makes a book a book: a binding, hundreds of sheets of paper with printed ink impressions on it, and a cover. Let’s even pretend that the book you took home has the same number of pages, the same dimensions and weight, the same binding and style of printing as the book with the composition called ATLAS SHRUGGED. Do you have any just cause of complaint if the composition of words inside the book turns out to be something other than what the cover says? If you answer no, then you got everything you paid for. But if you answer yes, then you are saying that the composition of words makes this book a different commodity from the book you thought you were buying, and therefore you are rightfully entitled to a copy of the composition of words labelled ATLAS SHRUGGED.”

Does the difference in composition of words make an otherwise identical physical object a different thing — yes or no?

Did the buyer who expected to get a copy of Atlas Shrugged and who got a copy of A Tale of Two Cities get what they paid for — yes or no?

If the answer is yes to either of these questions, then you have conceded that the composition of words — the logos — is the sole differentia between two physical objects — and therefore the logos is what makes it a different THING.

If the logos makes these two otherwise identical objects different things then that which makes them different things is what gives them their value — and the property rights case for the logos is made.

Answer that. Answer that!!!!!!!!!

I wish to state that the Supreme court, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, held that because of the Fourteenth Amendment there were now two separate and distinct citizens under the Constitution of the United States; a citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment and a citizen of the several States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 [FOOTNOTE]:

    “We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment (the 14th Amendment) of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (first section, second clause), which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.” 83 U.S. 36 (1873), page 74.

And:

    “In the Constitution of the United States, which superseded the Articles of Confederation, the corresponding provision is found in section two of the fourth article, in the following words: ‘The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several States.’ ” 83 U.S. 36 (1873), page 75.

The last was later reaffirmed in Cole v. Cunningham:

    “The intention of section 2, Article IV (of the Constitution), was to confer on the citizens of the several States a general citizenship.” Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S. 107, 113-114 (1890).

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states are those described by Corfield, cited in the Slaughterhouse Cases. This is reaffirmed in Hodges v. United States:

    “In the Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 76, in defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, this is quoted from the opinion of Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. Cir. Ct. 371, 380.” Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at 15 (1906).

So there are now two citizens under the Constitution of the United States. One needs to find out information on both. For a citizen of the United States that is easy. Just about anywhere. For a citizen of the several States one will have to begin here:

http://citizenoftheseveralstates.webs.com/index.htm

____________

FOOTNOTE

The Effects of the Fourteenth Amendment on the Constitution of the United States

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15882

Also,

A Look At Corfield (On Citizenship)

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16868

____

I will have to watch it based on this review!

Well, that’s not the whole story. True, it’s the school’s right to set its own rules; that is, it’s permissible for the school to use force against anyone who would prevent them from setting their own rules.

But that doesn’t settle whether it’s permissible for the school to exercise that right. Libertarianism is a theory of justice, not a comprehensive moral theory: it only tells us what rights we have, not how we should act all things considered. There’s more to morality than justice.

I wish to state that the Supreme court, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, held that because of the Fourteenth Amendment there were now two separate and distinct citizens under the Constitution of the United States; a citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment and a citizen of the several States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 [FOOTNOTE]:

    “We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment (the 14th Amendment) of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (first section, second clause), which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.” 83 U.S. 36 (1873), page 74.

And:

    “In the Constitution of the United States, which superseded the Articles of Confederation, the corresponding provision is found in section two of the fourth article, in the following words: ‘The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several States.’ ” 83 U.S. 36 (1873), page 75.

The last was later reaffirmed in Cole v. Cunningham:

    “The intention of section 2, Article IV (of the Constitution), was to confer on the citizens of the several States a general citizenship.” Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S. 107, 113-114 (1890).

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states are those described by Corfield, cited in the Slaughterhouse Cases. This is reaffirmed in Hodges v. United States:

    “In the Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 76, in defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, this is quoted from the opinion of Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. Cir. Ct. 371, 380.” Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at 15 (1906).

So there are now two citizens under the Constitution of the United States. One needs to find out information on both. For a citizen of the United States that is easy. Just about anywhere. For a citizen of the several States one will have to begin here:

http://citizenoftheseveralstates.webs.com/index.htm

____________

FOOTNOTE

The Effects of the Fourteenth Amendment on the Constitution of the United States

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15882

Also,

A Look At Corfield (On Citizenship)

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16868

____

This is the minarchists’ dream amendment. If they could magically make the Constitution self-enforcing, they wouldn’t have to deal with the need for actual institutions and incentive structures. Sorcery is the only way minarchy could be superior to anarchy.

But I agree with the punchline – kids say how it is, no bullshit from them.

Vendors of PBX equipment are asking:

In a tough market, how can I sell more PBX systems?
What can I do you gain a competitive advantage?

The Answer:
Create a Unique Selling Point!
Differentiate your company and PBX offering with a Unique Selling Point: Your own brand of Internet Call Accounting integrated into your own web site,

You have questions:
Who offers this service?
What is the investment?
Should I go it alone and develop my own Call Accounting System?

Well all the answers you need are on the following website:

http://www.telcotwo.com – Check it out for a free trial

On the other hand we are being compared to Ben Stein: but it wasn’t long ago that Peter Schiff, talking from secure ground, was being laughed at by the soborific Stein for suggesting that the financial sector was unbalanced and due to crash.

I really wish those who wish to pigeon-hole my beliefs would actually be consistent. It gets really hard to keep up with who my ‘enemies’ are supposed to be.

apparently there is a twitter too

To maintain consistency, I always use “aggressive coercion”.

A) Witness to a crime should not be able to take payment from a criminal to keep quite about it. By approaching the criminal with a blackmail offer his is showing a guilty mind, mens rea, that he is willing to participate in the cover up of a crime.

Well, even if you are right, this is because in this case there is a duty to testify as to a crime committed. It would not establish that blackmail per se is a crime. Only that you have a duty to testify if you witness a crime and to fail to do this is itself a crime.

But is it? Why do I owe a duty to testify, to report what I saw? If I’m the victim, don’t I have the right to forgive the crime? (what else is settlement of my claims for some kind of restitutionary payment but a forgiveness of the crime?) And if I’m some third party, to whom do I owe the duty-to-testify? The victim? Why? I have no contract with him.

I agree, I have an obligation not to falsely accuse someone of a crime, since this could play a causal role in others harming the accused. (See my Causation paper for more on this.) In this case you are playing a causal role in aggression. But in blackmail, where you are telling the truth about someone, you are at most playing a causal role in third parties doing what is within their rights. It is similar to the reason why defamation should not be a tort or crime: your reputation is what others think of you and they have a perfect right to change their opinion of you even if they do so based on lies told by others. IT’s up to them to choose what to think and why to think it.

B) Parents adopt a child whose biological parents were criminal, or rejected the child. Parent wishes to keep this secret till child is mature enough to handle emotionally (or forever.) Also adoptive parent may be protecting the child from retribution by someone the biological parent hurt.

Blackmailer learns this private information and threatens to damage adoptive child’s life unless paid money. In other words the blackmailer has coerced money out of the parent in return for the treat of damaging the child. Money the blackmailer had no part in earning.

“Damaging” is vague. Libertarianism only “counts” “damage” or “harm” as something that is a rights violation, if it is aggression. So you need to show why the spilling of the secret violates the rights of the child. You can’t just point to “harm” or “damage”–after all if I build a dry cleaner across from yours I make take business away from and “harm” you but this is not a problem (this is one reason I critiqued one libertarian book that focused on “harm” (Patrick Burke’s “No Harm”–see my review); and why J.C. Lester’s is also problematic in talking of “imposing costs” (see Gordon’s review).

By approaching the parent the blackmailer shows an guilty mind, mens rea, to harm the child since he is willing to take resources away the parent which is supporting the child, or to divulge information that would harm the child.

This is floppy, imprecise, vague talk. The question is: are you committing aggression, or at least acting so as to play a causal role in the commission of aggression? If not, no libertarian crime.

Simple examples.
A) Witness to a crime should not be able to take payment from a criminal to keep quite about it.
B) Parents adopt a child whose biological parents were criminal, or rejected the child. Parent wishes to keep this secret till child is mature enough to handle emotionally (or forever.) Also adoptive parent may be protecting the child from retribution by someone the biological parent hurt.

Blackmailer learns this private information and threatens to damage adoptive child’s life unless paid money. In other words the blackmailer has coerced money out of the parent in return for the treat of damaging the child. Money the blackmailer had no part in earning.

Anyone can get confused about his legal rights and obligations in making contracts, and it should be, normally, up to the individual whether he wants to take legal advice or even read the contract. Any mistake of law the customer makes in making a deposit to a current account with a bank is going to be a unilateral mistake on the part of the customer: the bank knows what it is doing, even if the customer does not. Legal reasoning is that: ‘Money paid into a bank is money known by the principal to be placed there for the purpose of being under the control of the banker; it is then the banker’s money; he is known to deal with it as his own; he makes what profit he can, which profit he retains to himself. He has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal when demanded a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands.’ i.e. people know, or ought to know, that banks are lending institutions, and that current accounts with them fund the bank’s activities. Of course I have nothing against disclosure to the customer, and avoiding or clearing up possible mistakes.

The word ‘guarantee’ or ‘guaranteed’ is properly used when A stands behind the obligation of B, and not when A engages himself alone. This applies to a warehouse as much as to a debtor’s obligations. The warehouse could fail to return your goods, for example due to security breach or fraud. The warehouse’s obligations could, however, be guaranteed by an insurance company that would cover such risks.

Something might be done not so much to solve a ‘problem’ but to exploit an opportunity. For example the airline overbooking practice exploits the opportunity that arises from expected cancelations and no-shows. It would not be a ‘problem’ if there were more empty seats on the average plane, but it would be an opportunity to increase revenue (assuming you have no objection to the law that allows airlines to breach and pay damages when more passengers turn up to fly than the plane’s capacity). The opportunity of fractional reserve banking is to substitute paper for metal, i.e. credit for commodity stocks. Rather than holding larger inventories of metallic money, society holds larger stocks of equipment and buildings etc. You can see this line of reasoning in Adam Smith’s works.

warehouses and debtors both have risks, but the risks are different kinds. In the case of the debtor, the risk is insolvency, as you have no adequate remedy when the means of granting you a remedy are inadequate. In the case of a warehouse, you have two possible remedies: against the goods (if you can find them you can file suit for their return under nemo dat) and against the warehouseman personally, for failure to return the goods (even if he doesn’t have the goods, you can get a remedy from the warehouse’s own assets, if it has any).

You wrote: ‘handing out frbnotes in exchange for “deposits,”’ this shows confusion about both terms. A note is a promissory note, which is a documentary intangible and a negotiable instrument, and this is what a bank note is. A deposit with a bank is not a promissory note, it is a ‘credit’ on the books of the ‘bank’ (or a ‘book credit’) on ‘current account’ made by a ‘customer’ and is repayable by the customer drawing a ‘cheque’ (or ‘check’ for Americans), against his ‘balance’. Thus the term ‘deposit’ should be seen in its context, alongside of the other terms used and the law of banking. They all have complimentary meanings, e.g.
1. a bank is defined as someone who conducts current accounts for his customer, pay customer cheques drawn on him, and collects cheques for the credit of his customer current accounts.
2. a customer is a person for whom the bank has opened a current account.
3. a cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank and payable on demand.
4. the balance is the amount owing by the bank to the customer, the result of the credits for the customer’s deposits of cheques or cash, and interest, and the debits for the customer withdrawals and drawing of cheques on the bank account, and fees.

For example, when a customer deposits a cheque to his current account with the bank, what is the bank supposed to do with the cheque? put it in the vault? return it if the customer asks for it? No, legally the bank holds the cheque as the customer’s agent, and collects it from the drawee bank on behalf of the customer, and applies the proceeds to the customer’s current account. In accounting terms, the bank immediately credits the cheque to the customer’s current account, but, unless the bank wishes to provide credit to the customer, it does not allow him to draw on the proceeds fo the cheque until the cheque is paid, and if the cheque is dishonoured, then the bank will debit it to the customer’s account. In the event that the customer owes money to the bank, the bank has a lien on the cheque in process of collection, and can use the proceeds of the cheque to pay any debt owed to the bank. If you put all the terms used together, there is no confusion left as to what a deposit on current account with a bank means: it is a credit on the books of the bank, and the unsecured liability of the bank. Banks also accept time deposits, and I’ve not heard anyone object to the term ‘deposit’ in this context for what is clearly an interest bearing loan, so why in the case of demand deposits?

I wasn’t aware the state has ever been marketized…

There is no third solution.

Dishonest: I’ve yet to see any claim by Kinsella put forth here or on mises.org that was proven to be untrue, let alone a knowing lie.

Nastiness: for someone who wears their ethical beliefs on their sleeve, Kinsella is hardly “nasty”.

Hseih’s praise for Total War to preserve the Union reminds me of Cuban nationals who claim they love peace, but swear that w/o Castro they wouldn’t know language. She seems to have a severe case of discordant Stockholm syndrome, praising freedom while praising her captors and responding with severe vitriol whenever anyone suggests the Union isn’t all about “individual freedom” when they insist on a course of action that kills millions of individuals.

Any “reasonable” and “civil” interlocutors can see who is the unhinged and dishonest one – even if such a person refuses to recognize it themselves.

“Why Libertarians Should Stop Worrying and Learn to Love Intellectual Property” by Michael F. Martin

Plavix no prescription. Free prescription drug plavix. Plavix duration of prescription….

The Role of Subscription-Based Patrol and Restitution in the Future of Liberty

The discussion on spontaneous order is in the first section, Enterpreneur as Agent of Social Change, especially pages 7-10.

We come to similar conclusions as Sandefur — that there are many problems with the concept.

Cheap ephedrine. Ephedrine buy online cheap….

Girl scouts cooking badge. Outdoor cooking girl scout badge requirement. Cooking merit badge….

To issue this pardon would first of all further alienate southern voters for whom John Brown still represents a terrifying figure. In our increasingly divided nation where the South seems to represent a different demographic on almost every salient issue, this is unnecessary.

Moreover, I worry that the message this sends is fundamentally wrong in this time in our nation’s history. First of all, domestically we are dealing with a tea party movement that is styling itself as the new revolutionary movement in America. Do we really need to give right wing groups legitimacy in their desire to perpetuate acts of violence if they believe their cause to be just. If we pardon Brown for his actions, we are sending the message that it is ok to do whatever it takes even launch insurrection and violence if it is for a just cause. Does the anti-abortion movement really need another hero to justify the murder of more George Tillers? They already use slavery as a representative symbol of abortion. We need to discourage such right wing violence and terror rather than encourage it.

Also, on a foreign policy level this act would signal to our enemies that if they view our war or occupation as unjust, that violence and even terrorism are justified. Remember, John Brown murdered innocent civilians. Is that really something that we wish to condone in this time of strife and conflict.

A pardon is not an ahistorical action based merely on facts. The political implications need to be thought through.

Shame no one of your stature has the inclination to take Long to task the same way you took Wombatron to school. Get along so we can go along I suppose.